Category: political history

CHANGE IS FORTHCOMING

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Team Trump is on the march. The political-socio-cultural nuances of society, as well as the enterprising wherewithal of business in America is about to take an abrupt turn to the right. The regulatory machinations of the governing progressive über-left are being lined up for thoughtful revision or outright repeal. China and Russia are on notice: The Obama doctrine of mistaking cooperative appeasement as leadership has ended.

While Obama’s foreign policy twists and turns to the beat of “mother may I,” China and Russia have successfully been playing a very weak hand; they have appreciated the artfulness of bluffing into their strategic policies.

China is the world’s largest importer of oil. In other words, if the importation of oil was embargoed via a Saudi-USA agreement, China would be depending on Russia, Venezuela, Libya, and other odd sources to feed their navy. 15% (and rising) of Chinese exports are sold to the United States. Factually, the US purchasers generate far more profit on Chinese goods than the Chinese enjoy when selling their goods to America. The Chinese accept US$ as payment and invest such monies in US infrastructure, real estate, debt instruments, and equity. China is wholly dependent on a strong and vibrant USA. If China ever posed a military threat to the United States, we would enforce an oil embargo, initiate a naval blockade, and seize all of their US assets. 

Economically, Russia is death warmed over: As goes the price of oil so goes the cash influx needed to satisfy domestic demand. Imposed trade sanctions create trade limitations. The combination of import/export restrictions on consumer goods and vital financial services, expenditures of Russian treasury and blood onto Syria and Ukraine are not only costly; but such efforts, saving the Assad regime and enabling conflict along the Ukrainian border is of zero benefit to the Russian people.

The country is a plutocracy. Interestingly, even the wealthiest members cannot trust the Number One plutocrat. Those with wealth and power within Russia are subject to a whimsical Putin. Acting on a whim; the Number One plutocrat could confiscate their wealth, destroy their families assets, and terminate their being. For Russians with business and governing responsibilities it is understood that fear is on the one hand the glue that binds fealty and on the other the knowing that such binding of fealty is wholly tentative. The question is: Sustainability, how long before a competing plutocrat or some grievous financial necessity forces a change of control? 

Over the last eight years, Putin’s strength was in direct contrast to Obama’s weakness… that is obvious fact. A fact that on the 20th of January will abruptly and blatantly contrast the former president from the newly empowered.  

“Draining the swamp” requires definitive means. If one believes (as I do) that the degree of corruption is proportional to the size of government. That corruption is a constant and steadfast component of governing. That it is impossible, under common terms and conditions, to stop the growth of government. And that the sole alternative to impeding government growth (because growth requires money, and all government income is derived from taxes, fees, and borrowed funds), it is self–evident that to stymie the growth of government one must decrease the quantifiable of tax revenue by abating the percentage of taxable revenue.

Trump’s ability to legislate his policy through the morass of congress is as true a test of governing agility as G. Washington’s term as president. The challenges are certainly as perplexing as Gordian’s Knot: according to legend, Alexander circumvented the anticipated by pulling out his sword and cutting the knot in half. Well, a few thousand years later, let’s see how Trump responds to the multiple of knots coming his way.

THE ELECTION BEFORE US

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the year 1781, adjoining Yorktown, Virginia British General Charles Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington while tradition recalls the British band playing an English ballad, “The World Turned Upside Down”. This American military victory was unbelievable.

The election of 2016 is a shining reflection of wanderings amiss, another unbelievable: Two wholly unqualified candidates are the electorates’ choice. In this election, innuendos, rumors, and factoids have suppressed the normalities of voter concerns, policies, and issues. The only pertinent question is: which one of the two nominees is the worst?

Long ago, American individualism was forsaken for the opaque assurance of personal security. The prevalent idea that government knows best has prompted a domestic policy wherein amoral secularism has inspired a predisposition to further — no matter the empirical evidence to the contrary — the outright dismissal of competitive ideals. Liberal progressivism has engulfed and is chocking the vitality out of the credo of American exceptionalism.  Congress and the Constitution: Be damned! Progressive leadership favors depositing American foreign policy decisions to the feckless United Nations; multilateralism and the internationalism of European socialism is their ultimate goal.

In today’s complex of technological options the means and power to influence thought is mighty. The media, all types and varieties, have extraordinary power over voter behavior. In this election cycle a lie, a purposeful misdirection, a circumvention of the truth in the interest of conflation or befuddlement has been lethally weaponized. 

An overwhelming amount of television and news print media has taken as a mission of consequence the political defeat of Donald Trump. They equate Trump as a bête noire, a person that is irredeemably a hundred times as dangerous as Nixon.

As a standalone Trump is contestably far from the average presidential hopeful. However, compare the two: Trump’s faux claims, his past disgusting unsolicited sensual advances toward women, his inability to disguise his narcissism, and his instinctual self-destructive behavior versus Hillary Clinton’s unabashed persistence of lying directly to the American people, her decisions regarding Russian engagement, the Iranian deal, her disastrous approach to Libya coupled with her unforgivably incorrigible acts and non-acts regarding Benghazi. Trump is no prize — but his actions never killed people! Hillary, in concert with President Obama, is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Hillary is an ideologically dedicated progressive who will undermine this nation’s constitution. Donald is not Hillary… and the world has turned upside down; given the choice before me I will vote for Donald.

AMERICA IS ON THE VERGE OF IMPAIRMENT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Fairness and evenhandedness are not a fact, factor, or datum of life and living; in truth, fairness and evenhandedness are — at best — ideals, besieged by a variant of threats to any continuum of civility. Imbedded in the ideologically driven propagation of media driven half-truths and misinformation are the besiegers. He, she, those, and they, the usefully innocuous, those wide-eyed innocent do-gooders unknowingly in league with the overtly disruptive, all unevenly contribute to abate the meaningfulness of the factoids — fairness and evenhandedness.  

Disunity is the catalyst of conflict. Surely, the wide-assorted divergence of opinions held by the many that rest their vote on identity politics is confounding the rational required by a democratic republic. The dissent amongst differing demographics each espousing a belief founded on perception rather than empirical evidence, logical deduction, or rational reasoning has validated the staying power of our primal tribal instincts.

Since the early 1900’s progressives have opted for a wonk elite to guide the republic instead of trusting the people to manage their democracy. For progressives, any counter-force to their ideas are radical, heretical, and/or branded injudicious. In today’s “carte du jour” of scurrilous accusations, progressives have reset their vocabulary to labeling their opponents racists, sexists, and mad.

Setting aside the “good intentions” of progressives, if their progressivism turned into reality the result would be the same as other “-isms.” Such as social-ism, technocratic-ism, fasc-ism, autocratic-ism, bureaucrat-ism… all -isms end with the adage “I know what is best -ism,” with the resulting finality, the cultural end of Americanism coinciding with the impairment of capitalism.  

The essential political platform of our democratic republic is capitalism. The economic underpinning of capitalism underwrites the expressed and implied values of America. Withstanding all imperfections, flaws, and accompanying defects of the system, capitalism is the essential compatriot of our democratic republic. The relationship is symbiotic.

Importantly, capitalism is not compatible with liberal progressivism’s insistence on penalizing profitability. Demonizing the more successful enforces the constant eroding of individualism in favor of a secular egalitarianism; this ideal of progressivism demeans the ethos of self-reliance. However, currently opinion surveys and pundits tell me that Hillary will be the next president. After all, Americans voted President Obama in twice, so I have little confidence in the Republicans’ ability to save the nation.  

HOPE IS AN ILLUSION

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama government is much more comfortable with the concept of “Hope” than the “take no prisoners” truth that defines this apathetic, “could-give-a damn” Darwinian survival of the fittest world. Even when evidencing what one deems as critically threatening to American interest, the president insists on “Hope” as the viable alternative to a persistently menacing problem.

The philosophic basis of today’s liberalism is one of hopefulness. As a liberal thinker President Obama presumes that man is rooted in good; therefore, all discerned exceptions to “good behavior” are the fault of some societal deficiency or Republican brainwashing.

The crux of the progressives’ political message is to point out the unfairness of the economic system. Directly and obliquely, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders contend that unfairness derived from and perpetuated by the one percent is the significant cause of economic discontent. They imply and express that the elimination of unfairness is their raison d’être for seeking elective public service. Noting that after almost two terms of a democratic presidency the central issue of concern for Clinton and Sanders persists. Irrespective, the battle cry for elective office by democratic contenders remains a slight variation of “Change We Believe In.”

Firstly, I assume, Clinton and Sanders, in every instance, will define fair. Secondly, they will ultimately define fair in keeping with their ideology and the terms, conditions, and timing requirements of their political resources. However, differing only on the amount of tax dollars needed, these two presidential candidates have summarily agreed on the solution. They have promised to cure what ails with the dispensing of other peoples’ cash. “Spend more money” is the steadfast progressive solution — a solution the president whole-heartily indorses.

Premised on a naïve, fragmented, even incoherent displacement of deductive logic rest the founding principles of President Obama’s foreign policy. He thought that he could declare peace… in fact, he did declare peace and withdrew armed forces from Iraq while underfunding the entire U. S. Armed Forces. His administration now dances around the use of the word ‘combat.’ The man of hesitancy is bewildered, confused, and befuddled, all the while holding his breath until next January.

Domestically, his factious rhetoric has given cause to the disruptive actions of “Black Lives Matter.” He is the reason Secretary Clinton’s indictment for her email malpractice remains a republican dream.

Of course, no worries: we Americans have “Hope.” We will continue to believe that a good defense is superior to an aggressive, relentless offense. Surely, our enemies will realize Allah’s call to arms is a ruse enacted by evil beings. Thematically Obama’s belief is, if we treat Islamic fanatics with respect, they will embrace, in time, a secular’s sense of human values. Convincingly, there must be moderate Muslims who understand that those who cut off heads, enslave women, and burn people alive in the name of Allah are bad people.

Certainly, the immediate preceding is a descriptive of “Hope.” I prefer to believe in faith rather than hope: I have faith that our armed forces will destroy ISIS because our mission statement is explicit. Our planning is in place and our resolution assured because our nation state accepts nothing less.

Hundreds of years ago a Roman general said, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” — “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Nothing has changed; the world is not any safer and Humankind is just as behaviorally dysfunctional as 1st century Rome. “Hope” is a wish-it-was-so, but it is not reality. Reality took down the Twin Towers. To think otherwise will lead to the end of liberty and the beginning of subjugation.

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Democracy, a word offhandedly banded about by politician, pundit, and common citizen as the working descriptive of this nation’s egalitarian system of governess, is flat out incorrect. In addition, the citizenry has accepted a natural carry-forward believe that democratic principles apply as the wherewithal of our electoral process. Of course with a bit of scrutiny one would realize that there is no egalitarian system of governess and certainly, political parties have no obligatory nor interest in anything other than selecting the candidate that will win the party an election.

Nonetheless, dull complacency and disinterested ignorance — both detrimental and injurious for a responsive republic — requires, with respect to government and politicians, a constituency with an askant perspective and inclination to be well informed. Obviously, the voters are complacent and ignorant. Swayed by colorful illusions, an agreeable physical presentation, the timely proportion of polemic accusations and placating prose, for the average voter, the candidate’s policies and merits are suddenly inconsequential.  

This nation’s 1789 constitution founded the operational workings of a republic — a representative government,not a democracy. The Electoral College requires 270 votes of the 538 outstanding to win the presidency; the popular vote is irrelevant to election success. The primaries of each of the political parties are subject to the rules enacted by the particular party’s State leaders. It is as simple as that.

If Donald achieves a majority he is the Republican Party’s nominee. If he falls short he may not be.

The founders purposefully designed a constitution wherein a republic was favored over a democracy. I do not know of a government founded on a democracy. The tallies recorded by popular vote is interesting but may not represent the electoral winner.

LANCELOT AND ROLAND PLUS TWO

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Last night I watched the televised “Hannity” featuring Mark Levin espouse his new book “The Liberty Amendments” wherein the brilliant Levin describes the multiple abuses (offering examples layered upon examples) perpetrated upon the original intent of the Constitution by any and all that possessed the power and the means. The perpetrators were presented as having many differing ideological hues spanning specifically from 1913 to the present. However, the clear standout, the overriding persistent abusers, according to Levin, were unequivocally the Liberal Progressives and their socialist brethren.

Further in the discussion was the consensus amongst the panel of political wonks, the host, and the author that because of the precedence of law (settled legal matters), even if these maxims were established by extralegal means or simply misinterpreted judgments, correction is highly improbable to impossible. Withstanding, all participants agreed that the only alternative to correcting the wrongs and reestablishing limited federal government is to persevere, campaign, and educate, with the goal being to win over their fellow citizens. To cause the country’s citizens to reject their heretofore liberal-progressive-political-economic quasi-acceptance for the values inherent in liberty and individual freedom.   

I have not read the book; nevertheless, what I gathered from the forty-five minute program was that it is Mr. Levin’s passionate understanding that “the people,” will cajole their elected representatives to add his amendments to the Constitution. Hmm… he has more faith than I do.

Here are a few of the obstacles: Politicians are not required to tell the truth and the mainstream media conveys a political prospective regardless of the truth. One-man-one-vote does not require the voter to understand anything whatsoever. Ideological and predisposed beliefs create predeterminations that erode reexamination. Contrivance is much more interesting because the prevailing perception is that the facts are ambiguous even when the facts are well-defined. Pointedly, the predominate challenge, the one wrong that if not righted — all other efforts or concerns are for naught — is to redraft for definitive purpose the individual tax obligation owed to  the federal government. When over 45% or more Americans pay no, none, nada, in federal income tax they have no “skin in the game.” Therefore, they have no interest in the prevailing political indiscretions or if the federal government is running amok with injurious, imprudent, costly, ineffectual spending. They endure the careless, the stupid, and the nonsensical because they are not directly paying  the price of incompetence. Indeed, they are being paid not to care. This tax avoidance put forward by politicians is nothing less than buying votes and should be illegal. But here is the greatest obstacle to Mr. Levin’s righteous offering: the progressives promise what does not truly exist and the majority buys it with their votes.

Righting the wrongs of over a hundred years of statutory perversion and unconstitutionally applied procedural distortion requires a high degree of multifaceted political dexterity coupled with the courage of Lancelot and the virtuous sacrifice of Roland plus two.  In other words, a super-leader(s) must emerge from America’s Hinterland and lead the nation back to its founding values.

What are our chances?

THE PRICE OF SECURITY IS TOO HIGH

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Fearfulness is frequently an injudicious facilitator of imprudent action which often results in a consequence contrary to expectancy. Fear is a tool used by politicos and oppressors. Successfully exploited it always abates liberty and increases the power of government. Fear will initiate marshal law and effectively rescind individual rights in favor of authoritarian rule. In its finality fear is a grand hoax perpetrated by the knowing,  powerful, and  ambitious to psychologically flagellate the weak, intimidate the strong, and appease their affiliates.

On 9/11 terrorists attacked this nation and thousands died. And as tragic as that day was, the real tragedy was this nation’s response — the immediate curtailment of our liberties.

Today we learned that the federal government is harvesting voluminous amounts of data on Americans because “we fear another terrorist attack”. Fear has prompted an Orwellian policy of incursion, blatant disregard of the 4th amendment of the constitution, plausible intimidation, and the blessings of congress. Now it really does not take an extraordinarily high IQ to master the idea that if a government run program was secret and the essence of secrecy required limited access, how does congress judge not only its effectiveness but also its constitutional compliance?  

Well, the fear mongers have the answer, “trust me I know what I am doing and if I don’t know what I’m doing well I personally know the guy who does”.

There have been many, many, instances of government abuse, incompetence, denial, and downright unconstitutional actions. The government is managed by human beings. The very same humans that interned Japanese-Americans after looting all of their possessions, locked up American Indians in reservations, invaded Mexico, and took Panama from Columbia. I could go on but I think my point is secure.

No, I do not trust this government  — or any government for that matter — and if I want to hold my individual liberty dear, my distrust is sensible. Please name a government, any government anywhere in all of history, that has not exampled corrupt practices, incompetent management, and served some perceived self-interest over the common good.

The Patriot Act is not patriotic; it is the injudicious imprudent action of a fearful state of mind and being.  I will not cede another word from the Bill Of Rights nor surrender more of my American breed freedoms because of a possible threat from an Islamic Jihadist.   

No, federal government, you cannot limit my liberty or freedom for the sake of fearfulness!

VOX POPULI

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

 

In the words of Alexis de Tocqueville:  “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” 

 

As never before in American history the warning of De Tocqueville has been realized. This election plainly presented a classic exemplar, the quantitative consequence, of President Obama’s class warfare propaganda.  The ethnic minorities, the have-less, the welfare-dependent, the callow, the obsessive contrarians, the idealistically inclined, and the devoted liberal-progressives…  in essence an assortment of divergent special interest groups coalesced to defeat the candidate with the only viable political-economic alternative to the current economic malaise.

 

The Federal Reserve can and will print all the cash it deems necessary, congress will tax, nevertheless printing monies and increased taxation will not generate a fiscally viable economy. There are some financial-commercial realities that cannot be swept away by promises. Taxes and fees (all taxes and fees) are generated from the profits of commerce. Even those creative municipalities that feed off of total revenue instead of net profits can only successfully collect their monies if the particular private enterprise is profitable. 

 

President Obama’s second term will include the enthusiastic continuance of unions financing Democratic politicians, States with Democratic governors will excessively levy, budgetary problems of federal entitlements rhetorically regurgitated but not resolved, ObamaCare implemented at a price of fiscally disastrous effects and complications, statutorily compliant corruption will proliferate, the concept of central planning and green energy rewarded, as the constitutionally enshrined meaningfulness of federalism retrogrades into a meaningless historical-remnant.   

 

On the international front Russia and China will enthusiastically extend their influence, allies will exhibit anxiety, Iran ecstatic, Israel apprehensive; and Canada is wondering if the pipeline will ever go through.   

 

The president and his disciples will immediately focus on the next election with the ambition of returning the House to Democratic control. They will continue overtly and in Argot to personally demonize the Republican Party and its members. Obama’s Deus ex Machina magic requires his coterie of devotees to control all branches of government. By the midterm election the president must establish the means to execute the progressives’ egalitarian entitlement state and their brand of authoritarian statism.

 

The plenipotentiary ambitions of the Statist contested against those persons of conservative principles and limited government will almost immediately evolve into an indignant balkiness of will. A spectacular reminiscent of a televised Mexican Lucha Libre wherein stories of hair-pulling, spitting, and eye-gouging dominate the news media.

But no matter who does what to whom, socialism, progressivism, authoritarian statism, or a status of egalitarian entitlement will not displace the present economic malaise with the antitheses. Governmental largeness will always fail to deliver fiscal success and abate freedom from the within and the without. Obama and his progressives will, at great cost to Americans, follow the path of the entire socialists and progressives of the past — they will fail to deliver.

THE TRUTH OF IT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The methodology of achieving dynamic governmental growth sponsored and applied by this country’s congresses and executive leadership, particularly after the Civil War and on to the early progressive era of 1900 could not have linked nor anticipated the fiscal calamity of 2008-2012 to its progressive political indoctrination and implementation. During this “golden age of progressive thought” there were no concerns amongst the populous that the federal government was exceeding its constitutional mandate, no one was worried that the feds would spend excessively more than the tax revenue provided, nor did anyone note the disproportional erosion of individual liberty and freedom as the power of the federal government exponentially grew upon acquiring the right to tax its citizenry.  

Indeed the discussions amongst the years 1910-1913 that led to the 16th amendment were considered (by the progressives & a large percentage of the population) the appropriate fiscal vehicle; the fair and equitable pecuniary means for which to extend the federal government’s income. This federal need for income was explained as “funds necessary to enact those certain (promised by the elected) programs, departments, and agencies that would benefit the average American”. No one anticipated that the right to tax individual Americans would convolute into the multitude of corrupted influences that would result in empowering the federal government into a jurisprudentially approved presence of omnipotent coercive dominance on every individual American not only in America but on every American throughout the world.  

In order for our federal government to arrive at its present berth of enigmatic bureaucratic complexities, wherein laws are nothing less than vague and confounding perplexities where a congress full of disingenuous representatives are so caught up in the interest of projecting their own rancorous ideological persuasion that the business of the nation is set aside as a collateral eventual. Therefore the business of governing is delegated to retained attorneys, unelected staff, and ideological acolytes who, aside from direct obedience to orders, imply their own selections and expressions of rightfulness into the rules and regulations of legislative enactments. It is therefore understood that inherent to the congressional process which includes the passing of legislation no one understands, is the handing off of endorsed laws of the land to an unelected public employee union protected officialdom of civil servants.  

The willingness of the elected, often with the blessings of their constituency, to accept a heavily leveraged debt on future tax revenue requires decades of not simply imprudent legislation or the simple disregard of the sagacious in favor of expedited contrivance. Nor is this nation’s fiscal disposition the fault of political connivance for some special interest, oh no, the corruption is much deeper and broader in scope than that simplistic an answer.  

Most disconcertingly the fault that forms the basis for this nation’s present fiscal disposition lies within the quality of its national leaders. It is the leadership — or should I enunciate the lack of leadership — that has eroded conventional American values. Leaders, instead of accepting the realities of truthful disclosure (to the people as well as to themselves) have fabricated a surrealistic response to national problems in hopes of retaining or attaining elected office and to facilitate those allied brethren who would benefit from such political tomfoolery.

A significant portion of the populous has purposefully (documented by willful actions) abandoned direct responsibility for their actions in favor of governmental sureties of sustaining guarantees. They have discarded traditional virtues for the convenience of the now. An increasing portion of the electorate has been convinced to morally forsaken outcomes, consequences, and the eventual finality of reality by applying the reassuring habitual of amoral stupefaction.    

No greater example of such non-leadership is the Obama-Bidden administration… the only responsibility they agree to accept is the responsibility of governing for the next four years. Do we conservatives, moderates, and even fair-minded liberals really want four more years of the Obama-Bidden brand of leadership? I think NOT.

The government can easily hide, rearrange, and disfigure data and statistics; the government can print money and tax every American for anything it wishes. The president can lie to the American people; he can coach the Secretary of State and the head of national intelligence to fault themselves for the distortions of facts in Libya… But this president cannot fool all the people all of the time. The evidence of all my contentions and assertions will be vindicated or not upon election night…

A REPUBLIC IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

“At the close of the Constitution convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.”

Simply defined a republic (of the United States of America) is a constitutionally derived government wherein the power of governance is held by the citizens entitled to vote directly or indirectly through their elected representatives.  This nation’s constitution was constructed specifically to deny the executive branch omnipotent power; congress was purposefully divided into two houses of representation and the Supreme Court, though justices require senate approval, was structured to avoid political influence or pressure by having the justices serve life terms. The uniquely American system of checks and balances was tantamount with the 1789 concept of limited government power wherein each branch of government was restrained and purposely did not reign supreme over the other.

After a couple of hundred years plus, the response to Franklin’s challenge to Mrs. Powel is that the nation could not keep its status as the republic of original intent: As with all preceding governments since ancient Rome, original intent was converted, dismissed, and resubmitted with caveats and amendments or replaced by the finesse of legalized sleight-of-hand.

There are many causes, reasons, and excuses as to the loss of original intent… but if one was to be extracted from the many to form the critical it would be the following:

The first is the inclination of those that govern to fashion governing in the image of their ideology first and the tenets of the constitution last; and if not persuaded firstly by their ideology, then it is their personal perspective of righteousness, their egocentric wanting enthusiastically seeking applause; or their craving for immortal achievement and recognition.

There are numerous examples of extra-constitutional actions by the elected; forthwith are two:

Presidents John Adams and his Federalist within congress enacting the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition’s Act, and Thomas Jefferson affirming the Louisiana Purchase without the approval of the Senate; all such actions undercut and evaded their oath to uphold the constitution. The reason for such extra-constitutional action is obvious: The elixir of power dominates over many a president and congressperson, not to mention those non-elected appointees that wield immense influence within the authority intrinsic to governess. The will to ‘get it done,’ be it Machiavellian or the sweetness of rhetorical style, will always dominate the constitutional process; therein lies the issue of concern and the cause for the dismemberment of the republic as originally conceived.

The second of causes, reasons, and excuses is taxation; as so eloquently stated by Daniel Webster, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” In 1913 the 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified and the meaningfulness of the republic of original intent was diverted into the sector of a republic awaiting permanent deletion. When this amendment was adopted, wherein the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source…the idea of limited government died and the concept of forever-encroachment by the governing authorities on personal liberties and freedom began. 

The unlimited capacity of government to extract any percentage of a citizen’s personal income affords government a predominance that surely was never thought possible by the Founders. The ability for unlimited taxation far exceeds the government authority required for implementing and delivering services. Because of the 16th amendment to the constitution taxation is a weapon used by congress and the executive branch to subordinate and compel citizens to its will.

The harvesting of tax revenue by necessity creates a coercive extension of the federal, as well as, State power. But it is the distribution of taxes collected that enables political, economic, and societal corruption. Political favoritism is always a player when taxes collected is distributed. This corruption could have never have been a factor if the 16th amendment had NOT been ratified.

Evidence suggest that the larger the government the more grandiose and entrenched its bureaucracy. Correspondingly, a government other than one limited in scope, power, and means will always, unavoidably, abate the ethos of individualism; such a government will obligingly retard personal liberty and freedom. The government’s ability to tax at will has aggravated the sagacity of The Bill of Rights; it has shifted the ultimate power of governess from the people to the government and therefore from a republic to one of statism.

The third cause, reason, and excuse for the loss of the republic’s original intent has been because of the explicit exploitation of governmental operations by the legal and political class. It is these practitioners of the dark arts that have intentionally interfused the process of legalize-ambiguity into the mainstream of the legislative result. Regulators have lobbied politicians to purposefully injection enigmatic language within the nation’s laws so to establish themselves (the regulators) as the ultimate arbitrator of the law’s meaningfulness. All of these actions were and are intentionally designed by those in power, those close to those in power, and the always looking out for themselves appointed government bureaucrats charged with the tasks of transforming the simple and mundane into the complicated and extra-ordinary.  

The forth and the most notorious reason for the loss of the republic is the apathy of the ordinary citizen. The average citizen of a republic must participate in the national debate and they rarely do. They must be concerned with the political events and feel an obligation to be engaged and informed nevertheless with noted exceptions the voting populous sit on the sidelines seemingly satisfied to be enchanted by the spectacle whiles feeding on bread, beer, and games.

So no, Doctor Franklin, we could not keep the republic of 1789; indeed, the federal government of 2012 would be unrecognizable to the Founders…