Category: political philosophy

THE MADNESS OF IT ALL

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The recent opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the perfect contextual insight into a liberal progressive mindset: For these believers, “the letter of the law” is simply a cause to interpret, modernize, and philosophically enjoin with progressive thought. The motivational thesis of the left is one of deeply felt inspirations geared to functionally realign and reconfigure the law’s original intent to suit progressive ideals. It is obvious that the goal of the 9th Circuit was to complement their contemporary socio-political “feelings;” this court’s inherent progressive ideological underpinnings are the raison d’être that provided the basis of their opinion. Their intent was NOT to consider the clear and simple literal meaning of the law — but to overtly subvert the law in favor of progressively inspired contrarianism. 

Thanks to Harry Reid, the senatorial Democrats do not have the votes nor means to stop the proceedings, so they purposefully delay and scurrilously attack each nominee until they procedurally no longer can. I assume this stratagem, costumed as a political strategy, is calculated to win back the Senate in 2018. All I observe is a frustrated, annoyed electorate confounded by such stubborn idiocy.  

The leftists (democrats and their sympathizers) are untethered from reason and rational: they are amok. Their conduct as “representatives of the people” is demeaning to the very meaningfulness of this republic. I assume the cause of such nonsensical behavior is the loss of the last election coupled with their inability to emotionally accept this outcome. The leftists have traversed from “Not my President” to a tactic of dressed in black, donning hood and mask and armed with baseball bat, ready to physically confront and destroy. This particular minority of resisters has evolved from the non-acceptance of a Trump victory to forming a posse of vigilantes.

In the interest of contentment, maybe Blue States should consider seceding from the union. However, unlike 1861, this president (with the support of Red States) would endorse and ratify the act of succession.

More than likely, the only remedy for Democrats is to lose the next election wherein they would decrease their senatorial numbers and proportionate influence; 8 or so seats ceded to the republicans should do it.

Instead of compromising with conservatives, the democrats have moved further to the political socio-economic left and with the election of Trump and the Republican control of Congress the Republicans are not in a mood to listen or facilitate Democratic concerns. There’s no Fort Sumter in the near future; however, I believe we are still one more election away from meaningful deliberations.

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.

THE PROGRESSIVE ECONOMIST

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Renowned economists would have us believe that economics is a mysterious vortex of kinetically sensitive financial quantities. Thereby, originating a factoid that only the intellectually blessed of cognitive genius could possibly grasp, an economy’s meaningfulness. Liberal progressive economists sporting PhD credentials by variable means, perpetuate the mystery of economics as innately ambiguous and too abstruse for common comprehension.

In the interest of buttressing their omnipotent façade, while reinforcing the mysteriousness of their wonkiness, they speak in a dialect imitative of English — but purposely designed as nothing more than a series of soliloquies on the merits of generalization.

These economists of PhD credentials are not harbingers: despite their insistence on the viability of economic models built on definitive factualisms, the truth is, they cannot rationalize the dynamics of an irrational marketplace. Nonetheless, they can pretend to foresee the future and profess that the way, the truth, and the light are their providence.

A nation’s economics intrinsically convolutes the economist onto a symbiotic relationship with the politician. These two professions are, often for differing reasons, enjoined: The economist, while striving to inject economic certainty, collaborates with politicians seeking to attain (or retain) their office. This collaborative creates the opening (excessive and illogical regulation) for an economy permeated with marketplace distortions that pervert the otherwise natural flow of buy & sell transactional risk and reward.

It is impossible for individual liberty and freedom to exist in an economy free of chaotic untimeliness. An economy influenced by the enjoinments of politicians and economists is the preparatory culmination of a democratic republic and the beginning of autocratic socialism. Perfect, even near perfect, as with egalitarianism is a useful canard for the progressive economist.

Progressive economists and their bedfellow politicians have created an operational dimension free of constitutional restraints. They function within their manufactured isle protected by ambiguity, “the process,” and an apathetic, “what’s in it for me,” citizenry.

More laws sum into less liberty…

THEY CALL THEIR STANDS A MORAL IMPERATIVE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

“Never Trump,” the battle cry of and from the disenchanted who obstinately pledge a no-vote for Trump. How incredibly stupid is that! Imagine the thought process of the “Never Trump” cadre: These otherwise conservative Republicans are asserting their sensibilities of conscience. A moral vector deep within their ethos of righteousness has prompted these otherwise conservative voters to enlist (by not overtly voting for Trump) in the election of a liberal progressive with a proven track record of habitually lying to the American people. Effectually, these righteous ones, prompted by a binding moral obligation of their own creation, will directly assist in the election of an immoral/amoral person to the presidency of the United States?

Interestingly, the “Never Trump” movement is sprinkled with the crème de la crème of the respected intelligentsia of the conservative perspective. Their brethren of such electoral dumbness includes spiteful politicians, political operatives, as well as the contrarians of sanity who cannot get past the fact that Trump, against all odds of doing so, won the primary.

Trump’s policy flip-flops, his constancy of wasting time and resources while responding to personal issues of collateral importance, his off-the-cuff speechifying initiating subsequent clarifications, his inclinations for panegyric self-indulgence, and his habitual exclamations of assertions that are often scurrilously inflammatory — all of these behavioral dysfunctions require modification or deletion.  

Mrs. Clinton’s judgments, just on the Libyan debacle, without considering the loss of life in Benghazi and her insistence on faulting a video as the cause du jour, plus lying to the families of the Benghazi fallen is sufficient evidence of her dire lack of trustworthiness and an inescapable example of operational incompetence. Of course she will continue the willfulness of progressivism, the purposeful extension of Obama-ism, and the Europeanism of America.

Amazingly, the “Never Trump” entourage concedes the effectual counter-to-the-constitution results of a Clinton presidency; and still, they persist in their anti-Trump declarations.

If Hillary Clinton should win this election and the Republicans lose the Senate, we can kiss the land of the free and home of the brave away… because we conservatives will be the fox, hunted by the hounds.

Certainly, the “Never Trump” folks will be part of the blame…

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.  

THE GREAT TRUMP GIVE-AWAY

InTheInterestOfSensibility1 Comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The prevailing discourse amongst the Trump camp is bellum omnium contra omnes, “war of all against all”: This circular ambush seemingly dominates the theme and premise of Trump’s presidential candidacy. Nonetheless, in this election, there are no innocents. The childhood adage “sticks and stones may break my bones” has a new ending: “but, words of invectiveness will win me the election.” In this election, factoids are prevalent and the “truth of the matter” is irrelevant.  

Hillary Clinton is a liar extraordinaire. She is a deceiver on steroids. Her tenure as Secretary of State was exampled by poor to horrible situation analysis. Moral righteousness and common sensibility are not intrinsic to Hillary’s character. Even though besmirched by the constancy of personal corruptive behavior, with a series of foreign policy setbacks, and a convincing berating by the Director of the FBI, none of these scurrilous accounts matter; her unwavering support from the liberal progressive media overcomes and overwhelms.

Clinton’s political skills complement Talleyrand.

Nonetheless, in the presidential election of 2016 — because candidate Trump, the narcissist, the blowhard, the arrogant trumpeter, cannot stay on message –America will suffer a tragedy that will rival the fall of Constantinople.

The Republican Party will not act to replace Trump; therefore, the party is as culpable as Trump in the forthcoming destruction of conservative America.

CLINTON, TRUMP, AND OUR REALITY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Barber

All governments are corrupt. Therefore, it is just a matter of time and situation before some member of government, prompted by a willful desire for a dominance of influence and authority, either elected, or appointed; contrives a process, a legalese, a crafted machination artfully designed or overtly extralegal, to subvert the spirit and meaningfulness of the constitutional republic.

“The people” no longer influence, manage, or determine (by their vote) the competency, courage, or honesty of their government. The citizens of America — in substantial numbers — are distracted from and notably ignorant of their obligations of citizenship. They have fashioned a yawning behavioral disinterest in the workings of the elected and appointed. It is the few, the educationally endowed elite, the politically connected, the politicized national media, and their pundits who posit their ideological determinations as if a certainty. Inundated with information, overwhelmed by voluminous and often contrary data, the citizen surrenders to the beckoning of pretty words and pleasantries of style. 

How else could one explain Hillary’s legacy? In the era of emails, cell phones, and archived video, she is the boldface practitioner of lies and deception. As Secretary of State, she enabled the beginnings of a purposeful fraud in the inducement when she participated in the Iranian agreement. With complete disregard of State Department rules and regulations, she stored top-secret inter-department emails on a private server. She unilaterally destroyed 30,000 or so of her emails… I could go on.

Nonetheless, useful idiots applauded her words and laud over her being. This mockery of lawfulness by an officer of the republic is one example why a democratic republic cannot function as designed. Similar to the beckoning that tested the sobriety of  Ulysses, Sirens of promises composed of beautiful words and satisfying wondering sway us, “the people,” into the comfort of pleasantly applied subjugation. Progressives like Obama and Clinton create an ambiance of rainbows and butterflies. They declare that life is good, all is as intended. These progressives only require a half measure of a citizen’s freedom and several pounds of individual liberty as the fare.

I have no idea of Trump’s political viability, his governing intentions, or even his ability to govern. However, what I do know with absolute certainty are the governing intentions of Hillary: They are French in enterprise, Italian in competency, and Machiavellian in scope.

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.