Category: political history

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.

PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is this Marine Corps saying, “Presumptions and assumptions gets you killed in combat.” The accurate transference to civilian life of this saying is attained by merely substituting the action word “killed” with expressions such as: A waste of time and money, a distortion of original intent, the replacement of the tenets honesty and truthfulness with immoral or amoral.

Our United States of America has over the last century (or more) developed and in the main established a government whose process of operational scope is not of the people, by the people, nor for the people; indeed, there is evidence that the 1789 constitutional intent has perished from reality. We the people can no longer presume or assume that our representative republic is in fact representative, that our federal system of power sharing between the government of central and state is intact, or that our republic functions within the lawfulness of the constitution.

We citizens have been bewitched into what cognitive scientists have described as “existence bias;” which is the persistent suggestion that the status quo is so prevalent in thought acceptance that its continuance cannot be denied. Interestingly, while believing in the power of incumbent thought citizens act on the razor’s edge of disingenuousness. They will entertain almost any antithesis of the status quo. Even when details are omitted…a declaration by any politician of an alternative to the prevailing has popular appeal.

A perfect example is the election of President Obama. Obama’s message was viciously anti-Bush. With complicit aid of the national media and the entire Democratic leadership President Bush was bludgeoned by personal attacks. Obama’s most pronounced antagonisms were for Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. Now after holding office for more than two years Obama has mimicked more of Bush’s policies than not. We now know that President Obama is evermore the status quo politician. We now understand that his battle cry of “Change we can believe in,” was nothing less than words empty of belief.

Possibly the continuance of the status quo was a more accurate descriptive of Obama’s administration after all, it was Obama who declared the simple answer to an ancient riddle of politics when he noted that if the ingredients stay the same how could we citizens expect a difference result. He pledged different! Well, his actions proved him to be the same; the same as any other politician seeking to achieve and now sustain power.

If that is so how is it that so many Americans still maintain a positive sentiment for his presidency? Often our eyes deny us clarity. We discount the actual with the utility of self-serving contrivance. The same occurs on what we hear or read. We have sentiments that can with some artful prompting discombobulate the meaningfulness of the palpable and evidentiary.

Besides the effective of self-serving contrivances, there are certain words, subjects, and phrases that mindlessly spin the minds of the normally rational and reasonable into a metaphoric array of self-determined illusions. These certainties that prompt one’s mind into the illusionary are disjointed from sensibility but not from effect.

Let me name a few of these certain words, education, fairness, level playing field, and social justice. For example let’s take education. A very powerful stand-alone word that entails passionate conjectures, even some facts, but do bridge to other descriptions such as teachers’ unions, school bonds, subjects taught, parental influence, sin and property taxes. Who in their right mind would be against education? But of course the real question is more of a definition along cost benefit analysis then the generalities of education on a per se basis.

Assumptions and presumptions are dangerous means…illusions of blissfulness and wisdom are not automatically encased behind a pretty face or beautiful words. And without a doubt assumption, and presumption gets one killed in combat.

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…

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!

WHAT ARE THESE DEMOCRATS DOING?

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

OBAME THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PENDING CONFLICT

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I JUST WANT TO BE FAIR

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

As I understand the game played by contesting political parties and their candidates, all the energy is expended on retaining or attaining political power. The goal of elections is to receive more votes than the opposition. Consequently, the objective of a political campaign, by all means legal or close to extralegal, in its simplest term is to garner votes. This ultra-democratic statutory of one-man-one-vote instantly motivates politicians to promises. These promises are often exaggerated as well as contrived. Sometimes these “in the heat of the campaign” promises included federal cash, miscellaneous benefits, and access to what was heretofore denied.

Normally, after promising the moon and the stars, the politician clarifies the promise with a reasonable number of caveats or synthesis of the original promise. If however the promise has the semblance of a specific entitlement to a certain sector of the population then the politician evangelically concedes that such cash, benefits, and access is actually a moral restitution. It is a societal debt and they deserve it.

The idea, promulgated by the liberal progressive politician, is that the forcible giving from those that have more to those who have less is nothing less than a righting of a long overdue wrong. Effectually, the theses and those who desire the retention or the attaining of power will promise anything under any guise, including dishonesty, to win the necessary votes. A consideration should be given by congress that such actions by politicians is an act of corruption hard, simple, and abrupt; but, then I guess we’re never going to persuade the fox, who we voters sent to the henhouse, to stop eating hens.

The entire concept of achieving the progressive agenda rest on a number of multi-reasoning considerations and arguments, I have exposed three plans. Plan-A’s basis to broaden in scope and size the power of government is the idea of Fairness; Plan-B’s is the plea for social justice, followed by the colloquial concept of establishing a level playing field. And if all else fails to solidify liberal progressive implementation there is always Plan-C, wherein, the progressive argument should prevail so to abate racism in its current form or to enable reparations for the white man’s antecedent racist behavior.

The proponents (socialist, progressives, Marxist) of utilizing the federal government as the omnipotent tool to right the perceived morally wrong-platform their argument by examples of class distinction-they note a pattern of unfairness founded on the premise that the rich are by means explicit or implied depriving, especially the poor, but also, the middleclass of their fair percentage of the bountiful American pie.

Interestingly they hold as culpable, in this conspiracy of immoral deprivation, the very federal government they hope to facilitate as the instrument to right the wrong. Applying counter-intuitive measures, such as blaming the federal government, was not unusual for the Robespierre Committee of Public Safety but in this time and space? Oh yes, wait a minute, now I understand their meaning, it was not the government in general, it was the republican government that created the unfairness. So these champions of fairness need to control the federal government by electing liberal progressives, then and only then, will fairness apply, only then will the rich share their wealth and all inequities be righted.

Naturally, it follows that in order to right palpable wrongs a liberal progressive government must have the power to act.

For example, a means test is essential to establish the definition of fairness; such a test would create a criterion of standards. This is critical because there needs to be a political-legal methodology to define the exactness of fair.

There is also the danger of the ever-present, ubiquitous, though seemingly always difficult to define, powerful special interest. These lobbyists may provoke and persuade action that may not service the acceptable definition of fairness; as a consequence, these lobbyists will need to be suppressed. This is a case for the ‘committee of regulators.”

Those greedy rich corporate persons who insist on higher and higher profits to satisfy shareholder’s insatiable need for dividends are a problem. This type of corporate behavior could violate the definition of fairness and will need to be penalized. Obviously, this is also a case of the “committee.”

Naturally, the ultra-liberal artisans who support the government’s interest in fairness need to be separated from the greedy corporate folks. Additionally, they should not suffer from any scurrilous accusations; in fact, any accusations of hypocrisy or self-dealing will be criminalized. The extension of exception to ridicule, includes, the rich who support the Democratic Party; it is known that these well-to-do really would like to pay more in taxes. Rich Democrats want to pay more in taxes because, frankly, they, unlike the “others” are patriotic and morally sublime.

In keeping with the concept of fairness, when the Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and free-thinkers are properly aligned or suppressed, a statutory law will define not just fairness but penalize any violators of not being fair. As the result of a law defining fairness, empathy replaces prudence, self-reliance, and individualism; no one will suffer, all will be equal, finally, the poor and disenfranchised will inherit their fair share.

Perhaps with a liberal progressive administration, a citizen will be prohibited from being rich. It could as if the estate tax was applicable while one is alive. Death will not be a requirement for sharing one can share while one is alive. The spiritual benefits alone enables one to find happiness on earth. Imagine working 12-14 hour days, risking one’s capital, taking on the stress of business and the reward is knowing that once one reaches a certain dollar number all goes to service the needs of those less fortunate. After all Obama has declared that $500,000.00 is more than enough money.

What I really love about this doctrine of Fairness presented by the liberal progressives? It is not tainted by any entrepreneurs, no capitalistic influence whatsoever, no direct contribution of opinion from equity or bond investors, no financier’s critic, none of that sort of corruptive authoritarians. Instead there is the purity of academia splashed all over this doctrine. There is the sage-like advice of liberal politicians, progressively inclined pundits, résumé-impressive professors that actually teach at prestigious universities, and of course, for real validation there is the endorsement of community organizers.

There is no doubt that fairness is the doctrine that will finally save the weak from the strong, truly, by implementing this doctrine of fairness, the meek inherits the earth as well as heaven…well, upon contemplation, liberal progressives are secularists so I’ll stop on the meek inheriting the earth.