Category: foreign politics

TRUSTING IN GOVERNMENT IS NOT SENSIBLE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SHAM

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

When one recalls the foreign policy actions of this nation over the last sixty-five years or more, documentation suggests that the policies enacted or attempted to be enacted resulted in a discombobulated maelstrom of more befuddlement than sensibility. Starting with allowing the Russians to attack Berlin during WWII and then ceding Stalin Eastern Europe, the preceding policies up to the present were naïve, even silly, with a mêlée of slapdash governess added just for hue.

As the architects of our own foreign policy design we were and are all over the board of probabilities to possibilities. Often our efforts seem rudderless. At times we have more sail on our ship of state than the objective would require; at other times, despite the palpable of purpose and all through the wind is at our fantail the pinions are bare. I do wonder how we could do so much stupid all the while remain the richest, most powerful, and acclaimed nation on earth. I can only assume that the other nations on earth are worse and/or that our reign of the most powerful is coming to an end.

We have Americans’ blood literally gushed and spread all over the world while this nation’s taxpayers are indirectly and directly giving away billions of dollars in foreign aid. We actually have given aid to our enemies; some policy implementers believe we are presently aiding the very Philistines that only want to do us harm. And what do we receive in return? The recipients clamor for more cash as they treat us with disaffect and disgust. Now, who exactly are the designers of this sort of befuddled foreign policy format?

This nation’s foreign policymakers lack the will to steadfastly point true north; we meander about in the afternoon trying to put out fires started in the morning, we are defending and reacting instead of anticipating and invoking. The elected and appointed bandy with prideful assurance meaningless verbiage, mistaking such nonsense as statecraft.

I suggest a meaningful realignment of underwriting criteria when analyzing risk to this nation’s interest. I would start with reassessing the prompts that effectuate an administration’s response to a particular international cause or incident. The response should be guided by a predetermined strategy. This strategy, at a minimum, must envelope tactical flexibility, a constancy of prudent processing, as well as achieving a consensus derived course of action so to enable a policy of oneness and conclusiveness.

The art and science of creating and implementing such a predetermined strategy is founded on objective principles of engagement. This strategy must infuse behavioral sensitivity to the challenge of an ever changing terrain and situation; therefore, the merit of a viable strategy is founded, in part, on its inherent flexibility.

Clearly, information gathering is a critical max factor in the extraction of intelligence and good actionable intelligence is critical when forming policy. But solid-timely intelligence, though imperative to success, will always fall short if our foreign policy initiatives are bungled because of poor management. Bungling is the fault of leadership. This fault of leadership is traced to leadership’s inability to define, much less uphold, any basis of substantive principles. Our rhetoric does not match our conduct. Our deeds are subject to murky interpretation and inexplicable clarification; and we wonder why our counter parties are miffed.

One of the reasons leadership poorly manages the affairs of foreign policy in form and implementation is that leadership lacks a basis of and for substantive principles. The administration talks of American-like values while operating to the contrary. A part of our continuum of blundering resides in the hyper-fluidity of our virtues; our inability to steadfastly adhere to the values and convictions expressed in our founding documents. It is our suppleness that erodes our conviction to objective principles. Over time such degeneration of belief in our founding principles abate the behavioral acceptance of what heretofore was the mores of norm.

Could it be that the textual of our policy is synonymous and guided by amoral Machiavellian persuasion? After all, Machiavelli did advise the prince to use hypocrisy whenever expedient to gain and maintain power. When the differing between the façade of moral intangibles are confronted by the amoral reality of application, there is no contest. The bureaucratic procedure of favoring precedents mandates amorality as its reality, and morality sits on the wayside, awaiting another opportunity to deceive.

This country’s foreign policy has taken the course of many powerful nations. Wherein leaders have forgotten the basis of their raison d’être, their founding a priori has been perverted, redirected, and possibly abandoned. Befuddlement and oral discombobulating are the result of such straying from the founding values that are encased within The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of The United States, the Federalist Papers, and the tradition of American ethos.

I suggest this nation returns to our founding principles and utilizes such as the basis of our foreign policy.

CONGRESS 111…

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMERICA’S NORTH KOREAN POLICY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

“Wish it was so,” is not a pillar, keystone, nor buttress to any construct. Wishing is not a tangible. Wishing though at times entertaining is a whimsical endeavor. Nevertheless, the foreign policy initiatives of this nation mimic the whimsical; furthermore, if such policy initiatives were applied as a surreal convenience, the resulting sum of efforts would be futile. There could be no more perfect example of the whimsical and wishful than this nation’s capriciously lengthy dialogue with North Korea.

President Truman decided it was in this nation’s interest to commit American blood and treasure to stopping the invasion of South Korea. So instead of dropping an atomic bomb or invading North Korea he and his generals, admirals, and politicians joined a United Nations endorsed plan. This plan was not tactically sensible or strategically sound. It was a mas-o-menos plan of pushing back the bully that pushed first. The invasion of the north upon the south was defended by UN forces (another descriptive for “let’s spill American blood”) as if this was a playground dispute.

Amazingly, to the chagrin of the political leadership in congress, the plan failed. American dead and wounded piled up. The North Koreans ran amok — it did not look good. Stage left enters General MacArthur. The general accesses the situation and executes a bold offensive (an amphibious landing at Inchon) that is so successful it pushes the North Koreans back to the Chinese border. Finally the dynamics of the war have abruptly changed; the invaders are pushed back onto the Chinese border.

However, contrary to MacArthur’s prediction, the Chinese enter the war by the thousands; Truman does not drop the atom bomb nor does he invade China’s mainland. Americans continue to be killed. No matter, Truman will not face the reality of a meaningful decision; MacArthur’s army and marines are overwhelmed and get pushed back… Americans continue to die. MacArthur is relieved of command. Thereafter, Truman’s term of office is ended; he retires to Missouri.

Enter stage right; Eisenhower is elected with the pledge that he will end the war. Note he did not say he would win the war. Well, he got that done. And the N. Koreans have abused this nation ever since.

In 1952, America failed in its obligation to eliminate a military aggressor. The crystal clear necessity was to ignominiously defeat the communist north. America settled for the wistfulness of convenience and the acceptance of an interlude instead of a victory. Now this gangster nation has weapons of mass destruction, distributed its technology, and will be a very real threat to the sector as well as the world for as long as there is a North Korea. Abuse has escalated to the deployment and possible detonation of a weapon of mass destruction. America has permitted an army of over 1 million strong to be managed by a rouge state and once again, we wish…

Of course this policy of “wish it was so,” continues; America is in this fix because we, despite our willingness to spill the blood of our people, spend the gold and silver of our treasury. We insist on evaluating the world not as it is empirically evidenced, but by how we wish it to be. It is as if we have produced, written, and directed a Pepsi Cola commercial wherein we conceive and implement our foreign policy. Well, at least we are not pledging to close down Guantanamo or procure our nation’s civil courts to adjudicate terrorist-killers of purposeful intent to kill innocents. At least we have not stooped to that sort of silliness and flagellation.

THE MOST IMPORTANT OF MID-TERMS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

America, as with any other representative government, governs by the will of the people and in keeping with such is defined as a nation of laws, not of men. The meaning of course being that humankind as proven explicitly vulnerable to amoral, immoral, and often dastardly behavior, man is untrustworthy. Hence the trust is placed in laws, not man.

Nevertheless, to place our trust in laws alone is not enough to guarantee our liberty. We have experienced the words of lawmakers and contrasted their words to their deeds. We have all noted the politician who says one thing to get elected and does another to please a special interest or an undeclared political agenda . We have learned not to naively trust in the motives or actions of political parties, congress, or the media, and certainly we know better than to enjoin willfully in the obedient believing of any governmental entity. The aggregate of all this knowing is a steadfast endorsement of askance and doubt as inherent to voter tangibles. The application of government mechanisms are of consistent concern and forces one, as a matter of due diligence as well as sensibility to verify, document, and contest. Distrustfulness is the fare of constancy between the government and the governed.

Some of the questions that this election will answer are: What does America represent to the world outside of this country’s geographical providence? What is the image of America in the minds of Americans? What is the American ethos and spirit? Alongside a vote for or against the Obama administration and its liberal progressive agenda is also, explicitly, a referendum on the preceding questions.

The many friends and enemies of America are watching for our election results. The world wants to know if this nation is now going to endorse Obama’s social, economic, and politically inspired philosophical agenda or turn decidedly against the ideology of liberal progressivism.

In this particular election, the meaningfulness of America, not just for us Americans, is being judged. Are Americans going to amend the traditional central-right ideology of governess and willfully endorse the Obama administration’s politically inspired leftist progressive governing? Or are Americans going to return America to its traditional sense of self? Are voters moving this nation to a European model or are we blatantly rejecting that model in favor of conservative governess?

This must be the most important mid-term election of the modern era… Soon the results will speak louder and clearer than ever before. The very future of conservative America is at stake!

THE OBAMA GAME

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is only one rule in the game of politics: There are no rules. Witness the nonsense Obama has contrived, wherein the President of the United States, leader of the Free World, has accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funds for U.S. campaign activities. The president – without naming the identity of the perpetrator – says to an audience of well-wishers: These fund raisers take money from overseas companies, “So,” Obama explains, “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they (U.S. Chamber of Commerce) won’t tell you where the money for the ads comes from.”

This diatribe, presented by President Obama and directed to the Republican Party, is utter nonsense! A series of complete lies, wholly untrue. Originated by a left-wing blog and taken up as if factual by the president is a living-breathing example of desperation. White House advisor David Axelrod is just as guilty in disseminating this baseless allegation. Obviously, for these two politicians there is no shame nor concern for breaching the law of dignified service. Both, Obama and Axelrod, as with most politicians, are only interested in winning the game… But in this particular, they must believe the electorate to be fools and imbeciles.

If this was the only breach of dignity and truthfulness; if Obama’s words of government transparency and bi-partisan persuasion matched the hand that he has played since his swearing in, these politically motivated void-of-truthfulness tactics might be less significant. The actual of his actions however have clearly demonstrated that the second coming of the light of the world is nothing more than another power motivated ideologue. A politician who, when measured by behavior, is much closer to Caesar than Moses. As evidenced by his most recent baseless lie, Obama will say and do whatever is needed to retain power.

We conservatives must prevail at this next election by a very large across the board majority…

RANDOM THOUGHTS…

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

THE AFGHAN CONFLICT

When I hear pundits, reporters, and journalists speak of the never-ending war in Afghanistan, I am a bit puzzled by the meaningfulness of their apparent frustration. Hasn’t this nation of ours, even before its independence, been steadfastly engaged in violent conflict? If Jamestown of 1619 was the beginning of our nation’s English dominated heritage, hence a reasonable starting point to mark the first violent conflict between 1619 and 2010, how many wars, lethal conflicts, police actions, battles, insurrections, civil uprisings, and violent engagement has this nation of ours participated in? So, if we have been in Afghanistan for these many years, the length of this particular engagement should not be of particular concern. With time as its witness, history has proven that if it wasn’t Afghanistan, it would simply be in a different geography and name.

History has documented, not only for America, that armed conflict is a constant. The only variables are intensity and geography. The issue of concern, for pundits, reporters, and journalists cannot be the length but the reason.

SUMMERS, GEITHNER, ROMER – THE OBAMA ECONOMIC TEAMS

On August 3 of this year, Geithner soberly communicated that the $862 billion government stimulus was still rolling out, business investment was booming, and the economy was poised for sustainable growth. Really! The treasury secretary along with the Obama economic team actually believes their lying eyes. The economic team endorsed a Keynesian economic application to this recession. In essence, the Keynesian approach plus the Obama twist is to print more money and give said printed money away to unionist friends. Of course the Obama twist includes a giveaway to union projects, empathetic political affiliates — and by no means leaves out in the cold their overweight pension impaired bureaucracies.

According to WSJ’s Review & Outlook, Geithner suggested that “government spending can stimulate growth by triggering private demand”, that “tax rates are irrelevant to investment decisions”, that “waves of new regulations can be absorbed by business with little impact on costs or hiring”, and that “politicians can assail capitalists without having any effect on the movement of capital.” Hmm…

President Bush and his economic team, headed by Secretary Paulson, also strutted unabashed in the same economic direction albeit, timidly, with much less of the taxpayers’ cash. Nevertheless, the financial implication was exactly the same waste of money / add on to the federal deficit. Culpable in all of these spend-more policies of Bush & Obama is congress and the aggressive yea votes of both political parties; amazingly, the spending continues as if rain is not wet.

A majority of elected representatives, for a very long time to the present, from one election to another, have successfully navigated thru the self-created shoals and reefs of what they say to get elected versus what they do once in office. The experience indicates that a politician’s loyalty to ideology, political party, and getting reelected trumps representing the common prudent interest of their constituents.

THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY

The time maybe close at hand to form an independent political party; this formation is still out there in the distant future. Presently, we have a choice between the Republican and the Democratic Party; of the two, I choose the Republican. But I swear, if they screw this up like they did the last time…

THE SOLUTION FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The constituents of this nation of ours are crying out for congressional action regarding illegal immigration and border security. Therefore, in an effort to relieve congress of a duty it will not address, I have decided -by the writing of this entry – to solve the US border/immigration problem with our neighbor to the South. Sound a little hubris? Well, if Vice President Biden, without concerns of accuracy or empirical evidence, bombast and hypothecates his persona of confidence in Obama’s economic policies, it seems fitting that I can unilaterally declare a solution to a heretofore unsolvable socio-economic problem.

What Spanish speaking country benefits financially from its willful albeit illegal exportation of its citizens into the United States?

Well, clearly Mexico, the sovereign state, benefits and obviously, Mexicans benefit — if not, multimillions over these many, many, years wouldn’t have trekked north. The very fact that Mexican citizens, seeking financial surety and all of its derivatives, must leave their home, usually by dangerous and certainly illegal measures, to find such surety is a negative indictment of the Mexican government’s veracity of governing competence.

For a service fee, millions of US Dollars are repatriated by Mexican banks. All of this income flowing into Mexico is prompted solely by the successful illegal export of its citizens into America. This exportation of Mexican citizens is premeditated, willful, contrived, and supported with a wink and a nod by the Mexican government and its private affiliates.

Hence it is not the individual alone that is liable for breaching US immigration law. The government of Mexico is the real culpable indispensable accomplice.

Therefore, for committing a breach of US law, it is the Mexican government in addition to the individual Mexican that is the violator. This ameliorated new approach (of mine) to viewing an old problem, once thoughtfully contemplated reveals itself as axiomatic and truthful. The governing Mexican administrations, both present and past, have been aiding and abetting for years the willful violation of US law. Mexico is the prime offender — and is consequently the first cause of reparation.

Let me be absolutely clear, I am stating, unequivocally, that the Mexican government is directly liable for its citizens’ contravention of US immigration laws.

Ok, well, so what! The “so what” is a strategic realignment not just of culpability but of subsequent judicial recourse. Nevertheless, the United States can offer to Mexico a means to end their participation in breaching US immigration law, or face the consequences of lawful recourse. Interestingly, the elimination of the problem is not only costless but readily implemental.

The USA offers to open its borders by issuing 6-months work permits – with some obvious restrictions – to all able boded Mexicans. The work permits are issued and a fee is charged. Any violations of the covenants by the individual will have a financial penalty, including deportation and permanent exclusion. The secondary guarantor of this transaction is the Mexican government.

The Mexican government permits US firms the right of majority ownership in Mexican domiciled businesses and private property and adopts an equal status for investment in Mexico as the US affords to Mexicans in the United States.

In less than five years, citizens of Mexico will have less cause to live and work in the United States because US firms who now control their own fate will blossom in Mexico. The border will be gleefully overrun by American tourists, businesspersons, and investors.

However, Mexico is now – and has been since its inception – a nation fearful of Yankee dominance. After losing Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona to the United States plus being invaded, they certainly have a good cause for such concern.

There will be resistance, but the positive effects will outlast any and all of those against this sensible approach to what I consider to be the inevitable.

In the interest of brevity I have dumbed down my solution to a single initiative; there is so much more to my solution… any questions or requests for more detail, just send me a comment!

TEAM OBAMA

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Lost in the never-never land of wish-it-was-true, the Obama administration meanders about. Led by Hillary, the leader of team Obama, U.S. foreign policy prods along moving a pawn, positioning a knight, threatening; well, not really threatening, instead they note, almost apologetically, of America’s capability of strategic checkmate sweeps across the chessboard. Now of course Venezuela and North Korea may consider Hillary’s state department threatening. So – just in case – she follows up any statement of policy that could be taken as an offensive remark with an assurance that any strategic checkmate sweep across the chessboard is possible only with UN Security Council agreement.

Obama’s representative, in keeping with the August intellectualism of progressive thought, thrives within the sublimity of contemplative hesitation. From time to time, as if to satisfy an unwritten script and develop the virtues of a heroin, protagonist Hillary feigns an aggressive posture. In reality, in step with Obama, she is disoriented and bewildered by the adversarial temperament of nation states. It is unimaginable to the Obama team that the sensibility of the president’s persuasion – much less his charming charisma – would not be enough to convince the lamb to lay with the lion.

I think they are too deep in theoretical thought to match policy to the ever-changing nuances of real time needs. Their contemplative deliberation requires the enjoinment of the many to judicious study. As a consequence of many opinions the process breeds hesitation and misunderstandings; a kind of puzzled enigma-like bafflement regarding the exactness of the administration’s intent. The resulting sum of the team Obama efforts could lead one to believe that their decision making form is disjointed and circular instead of straightforward and crystal, lacking in decisiveness and confused.

The need of our nation to demonstrate a clear unambiguous position on Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and at the same time by declaration and behavior display unequivocal support for our allies, are obvious to the international community. Instead, team Obama restricts its resources to the virtues of wishing and hoping, begging and pleading.

Iran is determined. North Korea is mad. All the while the United States invests and counters such challenges with the mysticism of Obama inspired persuasion. The nation’s Secretary of State addresses the issues of nuclear proliferation and rogue madness by endless negotiations. This particular Obama/Hillary policy is a filler tactic wherein procrastination is a better explanation of effort than the truth — which is: North Korea has stymied the most powerful nation on earth and Iran snubs this country as if it were a banana republic.

Obama and Hillary view China and Russia as partners of parity and good faith, admitting to the existence of disagreements, but mitigating such disagreements with the assurance that what was lacking (because of Bush’s cowboy arrogance) was tolerance, understanding, the artfulness of listening, and the meaningfulness of genuine cooperation. Conversely, China and Russia view the Obama administration as elites of the bourgeoisie; naive politicians with autocratic inclinations blended with arrogant self-regard who consider themselves Avant Garde and “cool”. An administration whose foreign policy, when disrobed, is nothing more than a kindergarten level approach to international relations; a policy that leads with endorsing the qualities of sharing and ends with a sort of “let’s all get along” western style simpatico.

I do not believe that the Obama/Hillary foreign policy stands any chance of reform or change. They are stuck firstly with an ideological predetermination of reality and secondly with a disabled sensory cognitive. My only comfort resides in the military’s artful persuasion and the response of the American people when team Obama proposes a policy initiative that is way too naive.

AND THEN THERE IS GOVERNING

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there are these midterm elections…