Category: elcection

THE OBAMA BELIEVABILITY CRISIS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William R. Barber

President Obama’s most recent rendition or brand of progressive socialism intended for injection into the American system of governess is not gaining popularity amongst the electorate. Specifically, he needs to convince the so called “swayable ideologically pliable independents” to accept this half-a-stimulus as the solution to this country’s economic malaise. In order to gain such acceptance he will need to enhance his present economic jobs policy with Republican principles. But he just cannot force his left hand to grasp that notion into affirmation.

I believe Obama is in the throes of a self-made dilemma; no matter which direction he turns the effect will have the same result.

Nevertheless and respectful of his failures as president, in relationship to the 2012 elections, the Republicans must get through the primary without drawing more blood from the faithful. Accusations delivered by fellow conservatives that bring into play social or religious issues, only arsenals, bullets, and grenades to the Obama camp; if such collateral to the central issues of tax reform, national GDP growth, cutting the deficit, and substantially reducing government spending does not take center stage the Republican candidate that will NOT decisively trounce Obama.

There is a strong conservative principled wind building up in this nation state; the young, the old, the naïve, and the hip, all are sobering up. All are recognizing this nation’s fiscal fix as a huge issue, a monstrous problem that must be firmly addressed. Everyone but the dire hearted progressives believe that government action is not the answer when the question is how to stimulate jobs and provide prudent fiscal responsibility. Indeed, Ronald Regan’s “government is the problem” has resonated anew as a validated political truth.

The Democrats’ policy mantras since FDR have always been the repetitive: tax and spend, overwhelm private enterprise with administrative-bureaucratic nonsense, regulate-regulate, at every opportunity scoff the very people that are financially successful, and scurrilously attack private corporations for making too much money as if such was a moral crime.

Lenin would be very pleased to hear the president’s bombastic endorsement and day-to-day critic of America’s obvious and prevalent unfairness. In the mind of the liberal progressive, Obama being the hero-protagonist, America has by purposeful neglect (turning a blind eye) and a willful tax-policy of enriching the rich enacted a tiered inequitable playing field that results in the enabling of social injustice. The Obama domestic doctrine is founded on class warfare and in the name of enabling fairness and social justice he wages this war with weapons of income redistribution schemes and in effect pro-union affirmative action.

Interestingly, according to Obama it is not the American people that are to blame for all of these detriments to society; factually, Obama suggests, even the Republican Party is only in part responsible. The blame for America’s societal disregard is squared directly on the Tea Party activists. Progressives want to believe that these Tea Party provocateurs of social injustice have signed a secret alliance with the far-right and neo-fascists ideologues. The mission of this hypothetical alliance is to rid the country of all welfare programs, social security, Medicare, government designed fiscal safety nets, and unions. The motivation of this alliance is racist in scope, Christian evangelistic exclusive, and xenophobic in character.

Well, I left out some blame set aside for former President Bush; of course Obama does realize that without Bush and the Arizona Senator there would be no Obama presidency.

I wonder how Obama’s and Biden’s investment in green energy is doing???

THE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO BE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Where, oh where is the real conservative deal — or should I say candidate? I cannot find the evidence wherein the conservative principles presently expounded by Romney, in the present match up to his governing record much less his past policies and documented positions. My inclination is to believe that he really wants to be president and he goes about the tasks of attaining the office as if it was a corporate marketing endeavor. Therein his campaign strives to increase market share by appealing to popular sentiments rather than ideals that come from their candidate’s soul conviction. In other words, I have a hard time believing he is an ideologically sound conservative. Now of course he is Redwood trees taller, better, stronger, and much more integral to my governing values than Obama; so if that is the choice, the choice is easy.

I assume this is the situation where the bone eats the dog; in order to win an election the appeal must be wider/broader than a politician’s core political ideology. Presumptively that in real terms must mean lying, deceiving, and generally dancing about one’s core beliefs are the voter expectation of a politician. Only in vague generalities does the voter come to understand the inner mindset of the candidates’ particulars. When it comes to actually governing, well, voters have been influenced to understand that there are way too many factors and unanticipated influences to predict a politician’s ideological sway. My response to such nonsense is Gobbledygook…

I am inclined to support Perry over Romney because he blunders about with his truthfulness; his hyperbole, even his inaccurate and misinformation, come from his heart. He does not read from a TelePrompTer; he actually addresses the question asked… I find that amazing. He is a glad handier. He is a populous stirrer upper but he does so, even when he is wrong, from conviction. He knows what it is like to be poor. Hell, he even knows what it is like to be a Democrat.

Admittedly, he will have a tougher rough beating Obama because he may not appeal to a wide enough ideological swath of independents; but in this situation, the freshman senator from Florida would be extremely helpful as Perry’s VP.

When it comes to governing, we the people always get what we deserve. Although I have a special disregard for the contributions of certain boneheaded ever-electable representatives of congress, all the liberal progressives who in the interest of forcing a governess that simply does not work, and those attorneys in staff that really distort the meaning of governess by the people, one must remember and emphasis that the goal of us conservatives is to win a 60-plus majority of the Senate, maintain the majority in the House, and oust Obama from the White House. I do believe America is counting on such an election outcome.

ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Whenever opposing personalities representing differing ideologies or political party affiliations confront each other, particularly when presented in front of broadcast media, the question asked (by the host) is almost never answered. Instead of a direct answer to a direct query, the answerer prefers an oral rendering that may or may not have some semblance to the subject of the question. If the representations of differing political perspectives are physically or virtually present, invariably they evolve into speaking over each other and the listener is inhibited from hearing neither. These ideologically enhanced representatives, elected, appointed, or staffed, behave as if programmed and robotically manipulated by some self-righteous guru who by means inexplicit has grasps firmly on to the ideal-political truth of the matter.

Respective of attempts to dislodge these acolytes of ideological believers they steadfastly stay committed to the predetermined established line. They never permit facts to discourage them from their programmed commitment to the script. Interestingly, this act is repeated over and again; if there is an exception, it is only apparent when the host, and the guest has both drank the same cool aide. Then each buttresses the others perspective by complimenting on how smart they are and how dumb the opposition is.

My assumption is that ‘the handlers’ believe that freethinking and impromptu responses are way too dangerous an endeavor. Which leads one to deduce and conclude that the ‘bosses’ of the politically sensitive text cannot trust the personal thoughts of the question-responder; therefore, deception is the operational objective of ideologues in general and political parties in specific.

I am not really sure if this policy of purposefully misleading the voting public is effectual; nevertheless, obviously ‘the handlers’ do believe that this tactic of never answering a direct question with a direct answer is effective.

Possibly all public officials should swear an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth prior to making any public statement. If caught in a lie then the charge, as if responding to a question from the FBI, would be (an indictable) perjury. If such a benchmark was extended to political advertisement/publicity imagine how much money the networks would lose during an election cycle.

Sadly, the public cannot open-handedly trust politicians, the appointed, or the staffed; but then why should we presume that we ever could? It is a healthy voting public that looks upon its governing authorities with askance. The same attitude of skepticism even cynicism should prevail upon politically driven data, research, statistics, associations, and cleverly designed opinion surveys. It is not that political truths do not exist; it is that they do NOT exist in any pure form. Politically-unadulterated form is as much a myth as Obama’s “change we can believe in.”

For instance the newest politically inspired declaration by the Democrats are that the Republicans favor ideology over country. The implication is that Republicans are less patriotic than Democrats and it therefore follows that Democrats value patriotism over political ideology or party. Amazingly, this is repeated from one senior Democratic representative to the public as truthful. Does anyone believe that Republicans are less patriotic then Democrats? This sort of distorted nonsense is 4th grade dialogue acted out near the swing sets during recess.

Just as disconcerting is the questions that some of these network host asks. They are more interested in got-you questions than substantive. I wish the questioners would pre-declare their particular political affiliations and prejudice prior to the interview so that the audience could understand the motivational inclination prior to the Q & period.

I suppose I am asking way too much… after all, having direct questions answered directly is counter-traditional to America’s political-media legacy. Seemingly the goal is to usurp common sensibility by treating the voters as if sheep, cattle, or fish in a fresh water aquarium wherein the fish hobbyist makes sure that the temperature is balanced in line with compulsory additives and feeding.

It would be terrific if a TV program required all political guest to speak only the truth as they believe it to be and then instantaneously have a fact check meter that spurts out evidence that endorses or disproves the politicians’ statements. Well, fat chance of that happening, okay, I agree we need to deal with the reality of the possible not the supernatural; the answer in the immediacy is to scoot that Obama team out of office in 2012.

PROFESSIONAL GUESSERS AND FEARFUL INVESTORS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

As the stock markets of the world kinetically vibrate, setting a pace of newly found extremes for sell-off and buy-in, investors surrender to the bafflement of two offers: The first is to accept the blindfold, and the second is to stare-down the oncoming bullet as it races for the spot just above one’s nose.

Speculators of genuine risks are buying gold futures, coin, and billion by following the golden rule for speculation: Prices rise when buyers significantly outperform sellers — of course the opposite rings just as true.

Remember! The purchase of gold does not add capital to a company’s balance sheet; these treasures will not fund research of discovery or invention. An ‘investment’ in gold is a bet founded on the principle of hoarding.

King Midas regularly counted his gold; but he gained no material benefit from the gold until he made a purchase. Obviously, as soon as Midas transacted a purchase, he not only had less gold but the price of gold as a necessity of market dynamics depreciated. When one sells ones — gold which is a requirement in order to attain a product or service — one does so by a conversion to fiat currency. In other words, eventually one is going to sell gold for legal tender; otherwise, there is no benefit to holding on to gold. If I was a holder of gold I would want to be first in line on the selling side because if I am not in the front, the price of gold will be far less valuable to me standing somewhere in the middle of the sellers pack.

Licensed professionals bandy about their theories and conjecture their forecast. All of these suit-and-tie personalities act as if they were/are the bona fide harbingers of repute, each exuding the confidence of an “I knew my horse would win” bettor; of course this is only after the horse race was over.

It is my belief that genius, like wisdom, and luck are results that can only be accurately measured in arrears. No one knows — one only guesses that one knows.

A hypothesis, a tentative explanation of a phenomenon, is a best guess effort to explain what we do not know for sure. I believe all of these professional guessers are sincere hypothesist striving to analyze and present a reasonable rational commentary on an event that quite possibly could be wholly unreasonable and irrational.

The statist that occupy the White House lament that the Stimulus was too small, not big enough because they miscalculated the enormity of the economic Bush debacle. Their premise of finding the economically viable light and the way has not moved one iota from their insistence that Keynesian economics is the answer to the woeful status of present US economic ills.

In keeping with that belief they also believe that the federal government can directly create private sector jobs. Well, the certainty is that the federal government cannot directly create jobs. Other than covertly enhance or overtly embrace governmental bureaucracy, possibly bedfellow, even more openly the unionization of America, government involvement in private business can only increase the cost of doing business, stymie productivity, and – when coupled with Obama’s resolve on super-regulating enterprise – government can only belay growth.

I have no idea why we need to relearn the simple and palpable over and over again. Capitalism is the most potent of economic methodologies/systems. Currently, the federal government is managed by progressive persons who depend on an ever-increasing manifest for governmental largeness; they depend on the viability of increase taxation as a matter of policy. Factually, liberal progressives could not sustain their raison d’être, their howl in the light of a full moon if government is limited in operational scope. Progressives require a big fat bureaucratically enriched government in order to inhale their brand of oxygen.

This American economy will overcome the Keynesian policy of where-for-naught as it intersects with the Obama administration’s design of social justice and class warfare; it will rise above the ills of the EU malaise, it will, with the aid and assist of the Supreme Court, withstand the costly breach of good sense by rescinding ObamaCare. All is to be rightfully settled in the election of 2012.

ARGUMENTATIVE GOVERNMENT BY DESIGN

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Obviously, the goal of the fathers (of this republic) was to design a governing body founded on the principle that competing political elements expressed in variant policies, ideologies, and personalities, (often articulated by intense bickering) could find a forum for unfettered discourse. In the interest of achieving such a goal they created a republic that allowed and reflected, within the confines of the constitution, the means and inspiration for competing political ideals.

The principle of stimulating competing ideas is the essence of freedom and individual liberty. The governing of the republic was inextricably tethered to democratic values and such are wholly dependent on the right of discourse. The laws of this republic armed the people directly, and through their elected representatives, indirectly, in the pursuit of consensus with the efficacy of persuasion. In other words, the effectiveness of citizenry persuasion is the merit that prompts consensus; knowing, by design, that without consensus persuasion has no practical application. So to insure tolerance for and of another’s perspective the founders took into account a lawful process that permits multiple “bites at the apple” whereby failing to harness the required consensus is not necessarily fatal.

This lawful process was integrated within the constitution wherein the binding arbitrator is regular elections. In addition to elections and as a stand-by supplement to abate populous agitation there are petitions, referendums, and the specific right to recall an elected official. Matter of factually; there is a real, within the grasps, reasonable alternative for redress from the losing side of a debate for a particular consensus. Elections vent frustration, discombobulate the empowered, and empower the electorate… well, that’s the intent.

There are many differences of approach between this nation’s political parties; but the one commonality that both political parties have promoted is the expansion of the federal government. Proportional; some would evidence as disproportional to governmental expansion, is the coercive means that government has at its disposal to willfully impose it power upon the people. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice are only two examples of very intimidating governmental agencies. Since the administration of John Adams the executive branch has by means within the constitution and by means contrary to the constitution the underlying result as always been the unyielding growth of the federal government. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 were passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress to weaken the Democratic-Republican Party by restricting speech. No citizen could express in any form a scurrilous accusation against the president or congressional members; interestingly, the Vice President (Thomas Jefferson of the opposing party) was fair game. By 1802 the act was repealed or allowed to expire at term. The point being that politician(s) are not to be trusted with power; they will betray the meaningfulness of the constitution is it suits their perception of need.

For years the conduct of government was to spend more than it receives in revenue. Only through other than GAPP accounting did the Clinton administration demonstrate a surplus.

So now this run-away-with-the-people’s-cash government has run out of allotted funds. Naturally, this has happened over and over before. Indeed, each time the elected would use the forum to spat out accusatory accusations at the party in power for increasing the national debt. This phony nonsensical disingenuous plays well in the capital; that is until spending extended over 14 Trillion. Now the political parties are requiring an additional 2 trillion; that served up some attention.

The concept of competing ideas has run into a brick wall; the idea of compromise has evolved into political steadfastness. The Democrats want to find the money to keep their entitlements alive by increasing taxes; the Republicans say the problem is not one of taxing to little but spending too much. The progressives want a European style governing entity while the conservative want limited government. Legislatively there is a very real impasse. This impasse can only be settled by the 2012 election until then the party that controls one-third of government must negotiate with the party that controls two-thirds of government. Both parties have worked very hard to put this nation’s finance in its current placement; hopefully, the conservatives will get as much as possible in spending cuts with no increase in taxes. The progressives believe that fighting entitlement reform and enabling class warfare will help them in the next election… indeed, it just might.

IS COMPROMISE A PRINCIPLE?

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Common folks are now concerned about the nation’s sovereign debt, specifically as such concern applies to the fire-breathing monstrous interest-only service on the outstanding debt. When one couples the penalty of interest with the unsustainable, ever increasing cost of governing, rightfully the focus today is on the prudence of raising the debt ceiling without lowering the cost of governing. Of course, this cost-of-governing question has always been answered by an affirmation of “yes” with a behavior of “no”.

Historically, politicians and the appointed of all color, shape, and size have with uncontested consistency found it easier to print money and trade votes for underfunded services than to address the specific challenge. With equal consistency they have created a top-down strategy that simply results in fiscally impaired programs that knowingly, beforehand, promise more than they can fulfill. With PR fanfare they have created departmental bureaucracies that are addicted to doubling down on stupid. These very same politicians, with no hesitation or concern, bank on the public’s acceptance that its issued fiat currency is non-inflationary. All the while, thoughtlessly, in the unending pursuit of raising capital for today’s expenditure, these elected and appointed leaders have inflamed the probability of inflation when they collateralize multiple tomorrows’ tax revenue. These politicians in league with ‘others’, who perceive benefiting from such policies, are very creative; for instance, in lieu of pledging real assets, these financial genies created the securitization of air. They have spooned into the Social Security Trust Fund by replacing the cash for use by the general fund with Treasury promise to pay notes. The Federal Reserve buys Treasuries from the secondary-market with printed funds. And everyday, Fannie and Freddie borrow more monies from taxpayers to satisfy their operational needs. Does any of this sound like a fiscally sustainable system?

They have done all of this while openly competing with private enterprise. The governments of this nation have legitimized, endorsed, and benefited from the distribution of games of chance, cigarettes, and liquor, and earn at least a third on every gallon of gasoline. Let’s agree that this government of ours is the most aggressively prolific of robber barons. And now they want the right to spend more because they have spent all of 14 trillion.

The current debt limit debate has come down to Obama’s pestering for the next election, the newly elected House members sticking to their promise, and the electorates interpretive of the very ethos of what defines America. It has been said by those in the know that “the debt ceiling, means unknown in the present, will be raised. The crises as described by the media will pass.” Withstanding all of that, this next election is a defining affirmation for our country. If Obama should win this one election, liberal progressivism will be validated; the effect of his victory, at a minimum, disabling the conservative momentum. At a maximum it will push the philosophy into dormancy.

This debt limit debate is aligned with a greater purpose. Obama “the great pretender” is focused on reelection. The main stream media, on this go-around, are not so much endorsing Obama as they are in support of liberal progressivism and against the Republicans. Truthfulness takes a backseat to fear mongering, demagoguery, and whatever it takes to win the election. This time compromise will not satisfy the beast nor the paladin.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Although sobriety has many intrinsic values, one of which being clarity of cognizance, when the subject is the present status of US governing and governess, alert awareness does have its negatives. For example, consider the diverse problems that face this nation state of ours: Three wars, two of which have lasted nearly a score of years. Interestingly, the preeminent analysis (by the best military minds) is that meaningful withdrawal from one of these wars will not occur until 2014 and withdrawal is subject to that nebulous dictum, “depending on the situation on the ground.” The issues and concerns of our nation are numerous: Immigration, ObamaCare, raising the debt ceiling, entitlements, the seemingly never reversing high unemployment, securing the border. Obviously, without neglecting those peoples that blatantly just want to kill Americans, I could go on and on… but I think my point has been made. The price one might pay for soberness could lead to frustration at a minimum, even depression. So to those that believe I am drinking too much vodka these days I say firstly that the vodka is Belvedere and secondly Newt Gingrich’s most recent behavior is that of a sober man. Oh and so was that Wiener fellow… he was sober when he initiated, over many years, such extraordinarily stupid behavior we are now so overly familiar with.

Logic dictates that once a problem is realized one must find and implement a solution. This is the rational of western thought. So in order to solve the problems defined in the latter paragraph I need to find a perpetrator, a rat, a dirty no good to harness the blame. After that, if I was a progressive or a social worker, I could spend some time empathizing with the rat’s issue, finding the rat, the appropriate taxpayer funded therapy, and finally blaming Bush for creating the policies that drove this individual to act out such heinous anti-social behavior. But since I am not a progressive I can, without hesitation or concerns over the violation of civil rights, move into direct prosecutorial mode. So I charge the blame onto political ideologies that are purposefully manifested into the potent delivery systems known as the Democratic and Republican parties. These political parties have willfully, in the interest of power, prestige, greed, and let’s not set aside the overwhelming power of stupid, perverted the constitution of 1789 solely for the perceived benefit of their party.

Well, I have enjoyed the swallow of several vodkas. I can now read the comings and goings of the political sway that lies within the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. I might even tolerate an English interpretative analysis of American wherewithal enclosed within the Economist. But most importantly, my Belvedere has dulled my sensitivity to the reality of what’s happening. I still have a tough time tolerating what is tolerated by so many. On the other hand, them, the others, and those out there in the great Hinterland, despite the efforts of forces counter to my interest, I am still putting one foot in front of the other….

Clearly, the default position to not winning the presidency is to dominate the senate… we must stop the liberal progressivism of President Obama. There is no Plan B.

PAST IS PROLOGUE AND SUCH IS PLAINLY STUPID

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

By observation it seems that one’s obligatory as an elected official is to communicate. Naturally the communicative effort (preformed by the elected) is encouraged — not wholly, but substantively — to retention of office, raising money for the next election, or to explain a particular vote or policy position. The supposition of all of this communicating is founded on the premise that talking with and listening to the concerns of the constituency is fundamental to the duty of an elective representative. Of course the basis of this supposition is premised on the belief that the elected representative actually writes the thesis of law proposed and that prior to a vote on all legislation the elected has read and comprehended before voting. But now we all know that respective of the representative’s obligatory responsibility to citizen and country the reality of such sworn duty is mythological; the congress has long ago replaced reality with the surreal.

I note the descriptive “surreal” because where else in this world, except politics, does gamesmanship triumph over sensibility? Where else does oratory coupled with handsomeness frequently overwhelm the viability of prudent deduction? Is there another local other than congress wherein corrupting the intended purposefulness of impartial reason considered good politics? Only within the surreal of political affairs are a contrarian who has not produced an alternative solution considered a heroic contributor. Is there another being of reference where the founding document of this nation is dismissed as irrelevant or knowingly subverted by the unilateral decision of justices instead of adhering to the constitutional requirement of an amendment? Where else does the meaningfulness of a politician’s declaration of an anticipated result willfully subordinate to some arcane practice called the legislative process. Thus only after a bill is voted into law do the details emerge? Although practiced, (in my opinion) extra legally, by both political parties, this Obama administration has, with blatant, unprecedented, prejudicially derived ideological resolve, allowed the appointed, staff, and the employed of government agencies and departments to, in real terms, control the legislative and regulatory mechanics of this government’s governing operatives. Is there another metropolis of political wherewithal that could possibly, effectively, compete with the entrenched culture of today’s state bureaucracy?

“Well yes,” declares the Rook to the Pawn. “Please observe,” the Rook points out, “there are hundreds of thousands of business enterprises, as well as, literally hundreds of government owned or controlled entities whose life’s blood is dependent on the gargantuan, coercive, process encumbered, counter-sensible in operational scope, wasteful in sum, that constitute the means to create the ethos that powers this federal government.”

“Are suggesting, Mr. Rook that there is conspiratorial symbioses between those that support the resources to the government, the elected, and non-elected that manage government?”

“Hell yes,” the Rook replies. “It is not just the entities I mentioned previously. Political parties and their politicians buy votes.”

“Now wait a minute,” the Pawn cautions. “I know for a fact that a contender seeking political office is legally prohibited from buying votes.”

The Rook responds. “Dear Mr. Pawn you are naïve.”

“I’m naïve! Well, give me an example in the current era where a politician buys votes;” the Pawn exclaims.

The Rook points out, “in the election of ’08 Obama promised all citizens that paid no federal income taxes up to $1,000.00 if elected. That’s one example; another is unions that represent public employees. They pay millions upon millions of dollars into an electoral campaign for predominately Democrats that eventually they will be sitting across the negotiating table…restructuring pay and benefits for their members. Is that not a backhanded method of buying votes?”

Our America has lost its way…possibly, because of our financial success we have effectually gotten comfortable with the government doing all the thinking for us. We Americans have a difficult time with differentiating reality from the surreal; we are susceptible to the advertisement, that value could be free. That voting to take from those who have more so to give it to those who have less is just fine. And that trusting the government to perform is actually mitigating the risk of self-reliance. Millions of Americans are feeding off the bounty of multimillions of Americans. Clearly, no matter one’s preference of legitimately competing ideologies, there is a number, a percentage of taxes and fees that are excessive. What we are really discussing is that number, that percentage; surely, the rational and reasonable will find a solution to such a discussion.

But if no solution is forthcoming from an agreement; reality will make that decision for us…

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!