Category: political philosophy

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.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

PAST IS PROLOGUE AND SUCH IS PLAINLY STUPID

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I WILL TAX THE RICH VOTE FOR ME

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

So, according to Obama, if we increase the tax to those that earn $250,000 or more a year the deficit will notably abate. Of course Obama is not explicit in this presumption he only implies that taxing the rich “a little more” will notably abate the deficit. On-its-merits this Obama tax-a-little-more proposal is contentious and the conservatives do have a viable alternative. Just as one looks both ways when crossing the street, in the interest of prudence, contemplation is reasonable. Certainly, to endorse such a proposition, simply on the presumptive scaffold that taxing the rich will notably abate the deficit, requires more methodologically applied scrutiny than Obama’s campaign motivated rhetorical declarations.

Obama acts as if there was no viable counter-argument. Is it that the conservative’s emphasis on excessive government spending is actually on target?

I have noticed that whether the economy is good or bad, federal and state governments, waste taxpayer monies. With purposeful intent (motivated by trying to win office or to stay in office) politicians broaden old entitlements and at every opportunity creates new ones. The elected, mostly, Democratic pay explicit homage to unions; just take a peek at state pension obligations; I do believe that spending is the true basis of our deficit? Or is the Obama tax-the-rich proposal more an appeal to those who pay no federal income taxes to vote the status quo. Possibly this tax the rich scheme is nothing less than an offer to purchase votes in the upcoming 2012 election rather than a genuine proposal to decrease the deficit? Imagine a politician acting to better the odds of winning an election as a reason to act?

But then, one must appreciate that for Obama and his confederates within the progressive league, their real intention has nominal to do with deficit abatement and a great deal to do with servicing their agenda of social-justice. Indeed, once this tax-the-rich plan is implemented and thereafter (years later) analyzed for effectiveness even if the legislation had no effect on the deficit. The progressive ideal of fairness will have triumphed. And most importantly for Obama a progressive ideal has been in-placed.

The marketing of progressive persuasion is purposefully premised on invoking class-struggle onto the talking-points of electoral persuasion; the idea is to tie their political aspirations into an alignment with moral righteousness. After all (the Obama progressives deceptively preach) the poor and disenfranchised have no power; as Obama has pointed out they have no lobbyist to express their frustrations. It is therefore the obligation of Obama and his progressives to represent their interest. Now where have we heard this plea for the poor people before? Lenin comes to mind.

I do find it interesting that political leaders never advocate for the rich and the privileged although all of these leaders are rich and privileged. Inclusive to these pleas for those who have less every political leader throughout the 1900 hundreds up to the present have declared that the poor are poorer and the middle class is economically stymied. Naturally, what follows is the popular declaration that they will rectify this injustice as a matter of policy. This rectifying of injustice has been a politically enriched constant of Republican as well as Democratic leaders for a very long-time. Has no political party or political leader made progress in this endeavor to rectify this supposed clear injustice? Or is this rectifying of mostly economic injustice simply a popular campaign issue?

Obviously, withstanding whether this issue is real or imaginary, the politicians love the issue so much both political parties have used it. Of course Obama and his progressives have a particular infinity for the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Without it they would have no social injustice to rectify. Hmm… that could drastically change their political crusade to emancipate the downtrodden from under the thumb of the rich and powerful.

Over the years I have heard the adage: We always get the government we deserve. I now believe this adage to be a truism. The forces of bonne chance aligned with the failures of President Bush’s administration, Secretary Paulson’s response to the financial crisis, the Bush endorsement to fund the car companies, as well as, their unions. And bingo President Obama was voted into power. The anemically pathetic campaign of the senator from Arizona also made a significant contribution to Obama’s victory.

Well, respective of the serendipitous outcome of the community organizer’s 2008 election, by November of 2011 the voters will truly understand the meaningfulness of what a vote for Obama means. If he wins this time, big government, ObamaCare, and most likely another liberal Supreme Court justice appointment is a definite. Conservatives will lose big time; we just cannot let that happen…

THIS POLITICAL CONFRONTATION IS SERIOUS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do think that in the foreseeable future the likelihood-of-result favors a series of very nasty political confrontations between our competing political parties. Indeed, the 2012 election, regardless of the victor, will not settle the abrasively aggressive behavior of the contending political ideologies. The facts of the matter will not settle the political argument because facts (by the ideologues) are bent to satisfy the particulars of ideological predetermination. Such ardent predetermination (for the believers) is coupled with an unshakable belief in the righteousness of their cause; therefore stymieing any rational tendency for counter-party consideration.

Currently, for the White House, because of a looming election, Obama’s reelection is the single dominant interest. By a default of priority, the interest of the nation is secondary because the ideological ethos of each political party cannot rationalize the reasoning of the other. As a consequence, conservatives and liberal progressives will always fail to understand the economic, fiscal, political, or even practical sensibility of the others’ political agenda.

The nation’s budgetary and debt-limit argumentative is not in its core a matter of negotiating variant plans. This quarrel between the Republican Conservatives and the Democratic Liberal Progressives is an ideological confrontation; debate over the abatement of the deficit is an ideological cause to engage. There is much more at stake for this nation state than reducing federal government expenditures for the 2011 and 2012 budget. In bold-black, graphically clear penmanship, the current political fight is over the definitive understanding of what kind of an American government we are going to have in January of 2013. The grand question in simple terms: Is this government of ours to be small and limited in operational scope as the Conservative desire? Or is the government to be large and unlimited in operational scope as favored by the Liberal Progressives? This is the essence of our nation’s disagreement and the answer will be affirmatively declared, for one or the other, post the count of the November 2012 Electoral College vote.

With President Obama’s recent reelection announcement, political gamesmanship is formally afoot. The Republicans have put forth their fiscal remedy. The Democrats, instead of designing a detailed plan of their own, have decided to sit back and disdainfully criticize. These liberal progressives have decided that fiscal disciple and reforming entitlements, for the general population, is confusing. Inclusive with the confusing nature of the entitlement issue is the general unpopularity of reform. If one considers that abatement or elimination of ‘nanny state’ policies will have measurable consequences for those dependants of entitlement funding, such as illegals, as well as those that pay no federal income taxes, those that believe government owes them a free education, and a stipend for living expenses, one can understand who the opposition is. Remembering that for the Democratic Party, less the illegal element now that ACORN is busted, this is their voting constituency. So instead of servicing the clear and present danger for the nation by helping to clear up the confusion or explaining the non-sustainability of the present entitlement programs, liberal progressives have determined that winning the next election by endorsing a policy of abandonment and denial, and promising a continuance of the ‘nanny state’ is their strategy for election victory in 2012.

The forthcoming national election will prompt scurrilous attacks; personal meanness, noting the President’s recent remarks, will be part of the Obama believers’ daily talking points. Prudent discovery of facts will be set aside as unwarranted and for the progressive politicians, the mainstay of their rhetoric will, in the majority, contain misdirection and half-truths. Considering the context of the Democratic Party leadership, one can righteously ascertain that rhetorical gunmanship is valued over truthfulness. I do predict that the upcoming election will be 100% negative. I also believe that provocateurs from the political left instilled with bloodthirstiness for victory at any price will nullify the effectiveness of civil persuasion, and the nation’s institutions will be forced to decide if this is a nation of laws or of man. Tolerance and consideration will be ostracized into suspension. This electoral process will be evidenced as never before for its dishonesty, bombastic hype, and statutory non-compliance.

Beware! The Obama inspired liberal progressive machine whiles striving to implement a European-style socialist society with one side of the mouth, with the other he will say what needs to be said. Our President has proven to be very flexible when it comes to his word and words in general; he is unscrupulous as to concerns for their factualism. His money raising reelection show is steamrolling its way through America’s highways and byways. Machiavelli, sit up in your grave and standby to witness Chicago’s brand of the end justifying the means!

OBAMA’S IDEAL OF CHANGE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The working suppositions of the Obama government are that more regulation is better than less, increasing the taxes of those who have more is not only a requisite to social justice but a moral initiative worthy of any confrontation, increasing the power of the federal government is the willfulness necessary to instill a liberal progressive policy, and that all of the these working suppositions are not only the very thesis of liberal progressivism but essential to the Obama scheme for meaningful change.

In the Obama world of ‘Change One Can Believe In,’ patriotism is a low priority. While Obama’s idea of social-economic fairness is a high priority, a greater, more powerful bureaucracy in partnership with unions is the essential engine that will power the doctrine of social-economic fairness.

The location of power within the United States preceding the progressive era was founded on the idea that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people it affects. Hence the states, counties, and cities played a much larger role in governing. But over time, and particularly since the rule of FDR, power has been ceded to the distant federal source. Now evidence demonstrates that although this transference of power has been going on enthusiastically for many years, this administration has far greater ambition than simply growing the size and scope of the central government. Obama insists on a transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations; he wants European integration wherein the United States would be part of a united Europe.

Let’s look at the evidence: European-style healthcare, welfare, carbon taxes, day care, college education… he even acts as a European espousing a Brussels-like foreign policy, mimicking a European approach to nuclear disarmament, and his reluctance to deploy US troops in a leadership role is a direct reflection of his ideal Euro-America.

Obama and his progressive confederates possess dangerous ideas. Their ideal America would abate growth, increase taxes (not exactly compatible factors), surrender America’s superpower standing, and trade our exceptionalism for the common denominator of being the same. Of course the Europeans might think of us more kindly; we might become more popular, the Russian and Chinese would gladly welcome us into their sphere of influence. I, of course, do not believe America’s role is one of subordination — indeed, the antithesis is true.

I believe that Obama and his acolytes are internationalists who have accepted the concept of a Brussels-led union wherein the ruling doctrine is that the nation-state must transcend individualism, freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the American rule of law in the interest of servicing policies that are inextricably tied to social justice.

All I see in Europe is a burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth, and rising unemployment. This has been the European experience for the last forty years. It is clear to me that American capitalism will win the day… unless the liberal progressives kill the hand that feeds them. And they are trying real hard with fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing, more regulation, and the stubborn insistence on taxing “the rich,” to snap off the very hand that feeds them.

I was inspired to write this blog-topic by Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament…

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.