Category: political philosophy

JUST TELL ME THE TRUTH

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

It is amazing how we citizens accept “a culture” of untruthfulness from our elected or appointed officials; they purposefully disseminate their untruthfulness by means blatant, furtive, abstract, and ambiguous; wherein the only certainty of intent of and for these elected or appointed is, instead of educating or dutifully informing (their constituents), they utilize the facilitators of disinformation, misinformation, and general all-round horse-manure as their communicative contextual.

Particularly frustrating is the arrogance displayed in the execution of their nonsensicalness; they act as if such untruthfulness was the mundane-behavioral normative. Should there not be a law prohibiting any conveyance other than truthfulness by an elected representative to the public? It is a federal crime to lie to the FBI; but an elected official may convey less than the truth and nothing but distortion or misinformation to ’Joe public’ — free of penalty!

This practice (amongst the elected) of ignoring truthfulness in favor of other than the whole truth creates the intrinsically infested putrefaction that inevitably destroys our republic. Nevertheless, voters’ pique in this profoundly manifested behavioral dysfunctional has been brushed aside to the most common of consideration. Presently, because of the electorates’ naïve trustfulness of the political process and broad disregard of their citizenry-obligations, today, at this very moment, this “culture of untruthfulness” is viral and endemic — and for our republic life threatening.

Congress as an institution, the elected, as well as the appointed, are culpable of establishing this environment of circumlocution instead of transparent straight-talk. Our nation’s institutions are suffering from moral legitimacy because the practitioners of governing are less than truthful. There has been a demote reset of the moral denominator; expectations of virtuousness by the governed are impaired by secular dismissal, and the world turns on an axis of Machiavellian function rather than the principles established by George Washington.

Corruption is not a viable economic alternative. It will not work for anyone, including the corrupters. When an elected official conveys anything to the public that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the entire system of governing is adversely affected.

This is another solid reason why limited government is part of the solution; the smaller the government the less places for politicians to hide. There is no substitute for governing honestly, straight-up, and factually; the responsibility of such governess rests with the people. Rascals and empowerment is an elixir much more infectious than nicotine; and like nicotine’s effect upon the respiratory system, empowered rascals will destroy this republic.

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.

CONGRESS 111…

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIPARTISANISM???

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Every day, informational sources validate a constant: That divisiveness is a commonality amongst humankind and that satisfaction is no more than a fleeting emotion. Amidst the divisiveness and fleeting satisfaction are the all too human temporal effects of pride, unfettered ego, and dishonesty. These effects are coupled to other human traits such as the waste of time, money, living things, and the preponderance of general bullshitski.

Thank goodness… those who know all things (die Hochstudierten) have singled out the problems, excogitated the issues of concern, and firmly placed the solutions before the populus. Interestingly, as if to reconfirm the palpable, it is predetermined by the recipients of these solutions that the presumptive of askance applies. In other words, even the process of defining the problems and offering the solutions is divisive.

Respective of – or maybe because of – our superior intelligence, we humans have firmly rejected the Tower of Babel concept as a doable possibility. We humans are so lustful in our divisive stubbornness that any effort to dissuade our predeterminations is often met with hostility. Empirical evidence that proves contrary to the presently held ideologically beliefs, mores, and affirmations of precedence will NOT prevail.

Nevertheless, the multimedia demands, or should I say points out (at every opportunity) that they represent the voting public, and the voting public demands that the Republicans get along with the Democrats. There’s a tone of caution expressed (by the media) to the GOP, noting that despite their 63 seat pick-up in the House of Representatives they should not consider such an elective victory a mandate; it is imperative, the multimedia strongly suggests, that Obama is met halfway. This of course is the same media that voted heart and soul for Obama; the very same media that overreached its role as a “free press” in reporting on the Obama campaign… hmm, they now have advice for the Republicans.

I think the idea or practice of congressional bipartisanism on material issues requires the intake of mind-altering drugs; Dr. Timothy Leary (LSD) would be the consultant and dispenser. Noting that for many of the liberal progressives and most of the media the effect of LSD is organic to their metabolism; therefore, requiring no synthetic Dr. Leary stimuli. Yes, I am making a funny…

But the point is that the contesting by the diametrically opposed is of greater advantage than the compromise of principles. The conflict of ideas should be limited to oral persuasion remembering that the object of the persuasion is to induce consensus. There is little need or believability of/for belief if it is not strongly held.

Politics require artfulness. Many observers of politicians and their politics may include caginess, deception, and craftiness as components of politics. Winning a contested election is the successful management of chaos. Kind of like a feeding frenzy amongst the brethren. Of course campaigning has nothing to do with governing but everything with promising. Governing, particularly for house members, has more to do with the retention of office than the interest of the nation — if the interest of the nation intersects with retaining office-super; but if not, then the retention of power is the value.

The preceding paragraph is the reality and power of personality. This force of personality has as much to do with governing as the statutory requirements thereof. It is not pretty. It is corrupt. It is far from perfect. It is the very best political system in the world; but it does not inherently necessitate bipartisanism.

If congress is to govern it must have a definitive economic model. As corollary political measures have economic consequences, no politician can legislate without engaging the opinions and advise of economist. Of course the economist engaged by the White House always seems to be aligned with the President’s ideological determination.

Politicians maybe charismatic, some are bullies, others sway easily to the beat of another’s drum. But economists have an entirely different persona; well, maybe façade is a better descriptive. By purposeful design, economist constitutes an illusion of pretentiousness; after all, they must present themselves as harbingers. They also have the advantage of an affable naissance; unlike politicians, just about the entire profession of quotable economists is distilled within the providences of academia.

It is an amusing mix, the politician with the economist; each searching for symbioses, but acknowledging their pins and needles reality. Usually, it is the politician’s ideological inclination that selects the economist whose duty requires numbers, words, and ambiguity to coincide with the politician’s design. If the economist is wrong, such as the recent declaration of 8% unemployment, the politician sidesteps to counter any responsibility.

Once again, divisiveness and fleeting satisfaction are the feckless continuum; to ask for bipartisanism amongst the elected is wistful, even counterintuitive to the interest of the nation.

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Within today’s wide-reaching milieu of political discussion there is a ubiquitous, mostly unfettered circulation of opinions and thoughts. The criteria for the oral dissemination or publication of these opinions and thoughts are not necessarily anchored in truthfulness or untruthfulness. Indeed, in practice it seems, today’s milieu of political dialogue, discussion, and opining requires Machiavellian discretion and arbitrary behavior. Whether the meaningfulness of the discussion is careless or careful matters less; what does matter most to those of opinions and thoughts are the orchestrated, choreographed words and expressions that fit the spokesperson’s intended illusion.

For the professional televised opinionate wardrobe, hair, and makeup are as important to the desired illusion as the content of his or her opinions. The viewer is influenced by the sleight-of-hand as much as the specificity of the wonk’s perspective.

The goal of attaining intended illusion in the current political environment means that a politician, a person representing the government, or an elected member representing a constituency of citizens will not answer the question posed. Instead, he or she can – with a sufficient degree of amoral impunity – misinform, distort, maneuver around the obvious, lie, nuance, utilize legal trickery, be a practitioner of statutorily compliant corruption, and generally dance instead of forthrightly march.

My assumption is that the world of politics and power has an inherent genetic code that inserts into the practitioner’s brain confounding the once ethical to corruptive behavior. Why else would Charlie Rangel, his immediate predecessor, and the many hundreds more of any and every political ideology breach the sensibility of living a moral and honorable life?

Of course overt unlawfulness is a real concern; but what truly scares me is the corruption by means covertly subjective. Like the corruptive influences of accepting government entitlements as a right of citizenship. If California, a state that has institutionalized the righteousness of entitlements, can wallow in the maelstrom of bankruptcy whilst practicing a legislative mysticism that refuses to face realities even as its citizens vote in the very people that put them in the present position of bankruptcy, then left is right and one is two.

Defining the truth will befuddle the well meaning; but it is not truth that I require from my elected representatives. What I do require is truthfulness.

One cannot express truthfulness without transparency; no politician should expect to be trusted by their constituency, in truth they should expect, even demand askance. The practice of citizenship in a free society, a democratic republic, is the highest form of art. Citizenship is serious business.

I would relish experiencing a politician who obligated his office or person to truthfulness, honor, humility, and the sensibility of prudence over the often corruptive manifestations of political party, power for its own sake or personal gain of coin or ego. Naturally, I am not holding my breath over this “experiencing” as a relishable possibility.

THE MOST IMPORTANT OF MID-TERMS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE OBAMA GAME

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

For thousands of years, mankind has influenced, reconfigured, synthesized, shaped, molded, and redirected nature’s naturalness. The inventiveness of man has discovered – and more importantly, utilized – the energy of fire beyond the wildest imagination of the original discovers. The organizational skill of humankind has engineered monolithic pyramids and built the metropolis of today. Imagination and curiosity have provoked and inspired the process of thought into sophisticated philosophies; science has solved problems of perplexing dimensions. Civilization has advanced.

As a perfect example of the advancement of civilization, the founders of this nation state created and established a constitution to guide its constituents through the expected political, economic, and conflicting entanglements anticipated in the business of governing. Such a constitution was the empirical proof of mankind’s ability to compromise special interest particulars of the few for the concern of providing a greater good for the many. There is little wonder that numerous Homo sapiens living in the present would reason that government and governing is nothing less than another achievable challenge.

Therefore, leaders of a special persuasion have taken this challenge on in the belief that by organizing the operational scope and power of government to suit their ideological prospective, the beneficiaries (ostensibly the people) would, per pragmatic deduction, welcome the result regardless of the means.

Hence attestation emerged wherein the meaningfulness of the constitution could be translated and interpreted to suit an ideological prospective. That in keeping with assorted translations and interpretations of the constitution, leadership representing a particular ideology, would maneuver and manipulate the governing systems to configure and fit their purpose. Interestingly, these ideologues respective of their special interpretive all acted in the interest of the people; not one persuader suggested a motive of personal gain; not one acted to promote the improvement of the rich. All acted for the benefit of the common and poor.

While configuring the meaningfulness of the constitution along the ideals of their progressive agenda, Obama and his administration of progressives are imposing their ideological standard. Once again the published motivation is one of fairness for the common and the poor. They viciously point out the rich and the corporations as the villains of society. They note greed as the transgressor, positioning fairness of equity and the righteousness of their political-economic policies as the sublime counter alternative.

As if intoxicated braggers, for the Obama progressives, the sobriety of sensibility has been diluted by the toxicity of their leftist elixir. For these believers, capitalism is the culprit of preference, conservative ideals the enemy, and Machiavellian precepts a necessary tool of the moment. Their solution is wealth distribution via a hyper-progressive tax policy, tighter federal regulation, the abatement of fossil fuels in favor of green energy, preferring government subsidized entitlements to the American tradition of individual acceptance of responsibility for one’s livelihood, and in the finality the substitution of a republic for an oligarchy form of governing.

The policies of Obama are beyond challenging — they will not work. His ideals of fairness are incinerating harsh and bitter friction between the social, ethnic, and economic classes of Americans. His promises exceed his ability to implement. His ideals are best discussed in the closed-loop safety of a university; his allegiance to unions a betrayal of good sense. The ideals of Obama governess will not create a positive economic or political environment; they will only drain the treasury, siphon the patience of the American people, and weaken this nation.

THE RESURGENCE OF AN OLD HERESY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Winston Churchill wrote that “Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.”

Adam Smith is considered the father of modern economics; he wrote about the “invisible hand” of free enterprise. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are credited with creating an economic, political, and philosophical basis for state control or ownership of all material resources and assets. In the present, the liberal progressives of the Obama brand have chosen a synthesis between Smith and Marx. Their Obama brand is heavy on state control and light on free enterprise.

Obama is a socialist. But most of all, he is a politically inspired leftist zealot; he will do or say whatever is necessary to attain or retain his power. Over the last hundred years, this nation has leaned far to the political and economic left; plus, if one considers the validation of the last presidential election, one could reckon conservative principles mortally wounded. As a consequence, Obama and his acolytes accepted the last two presumptions as truthful, so plotted and planned the coup de grace to American capitalism. Of course the progressives along with impairing capitalism also wanted to rid America of its sense of exceptionalism. So not to offend its brother and sister nations, it also wanted America to cede its pride and unilaterally denominate its power and prestige.

I do think there is a common thread, distinction, or predominate hue amongst socialist, dictatorships, and Obama’s liberal progressives. As a matter of procedure and process, all capital mandated by legislation or edict in the form of tax, license, or fee must first funnel thru the federal treasury before distribution to dedicated entities or concerns.

Obviously, this transactional funneling of cash aside from promoting begging and corruption is the central government’s means of exacting retribution, rewards, and absolute control over the states, counties, cities, and therefore the people.

For those of us who believe that society exists for the benefit of individual people, that government intervention in the interest of the collective is unwarranted coerciveness, and that there should be no constraints by the government as to individual achievement…beware!

If free enterprise is the exceptional basis of Americanism then there is a resurgent’s of a heresy. This heresy, for a substantial portion of the populous, has an instant emotional appeal. The thesis of this heresy is fraught with stimulating calls to and for societal reformation. The context of this heresy required Wilson, Roosevelt, FDR, and the Obama government to use heretofore extraordinary methods and means to exact its ideological agenda. The empathy for this heresy is global in scope. It is well regarded in all political environments. The Europeans love it. The heresy is embedded in universal theology and particularly popular amongst the academic intelligentsia.

The heresy is founded on the premise that the lack of equal status be it social, material, or political is the root of all human negatives. Hence egalitarianism (the heresy in subject) is the universal answer. And most importantly, the political exactness of this egalitarian belief is that the state is the best and final arbiter of any and all nuances, definitions, or particulars of and for policy implementation. Although feigning concerns of social and economic injustice the expediters of this heresy are focused on politics and hell-bent to attain power.

The heresy has and does have many differing names: socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and within the last 150 years or so, progressivism. All of these “isms” profess economic, political, and legal egalitarian virtues. The ethos of this heresy is premised on an oligarchic elitism. Whereby; ostensibly, in the interest of the collective community, those few who ‘knowingly understand the meaningfulness of material issues and values” will lead the many who know far less.

The newest version of this heresy is Obama-ism. The president and his confederates of political progressive persuasion have cleverly traversed their way into power. They managed their entrée the ole fashion way…they got themselves elected. Now their heretofore campaign rhetoric has run into the real world; wherein, smartly expressed and cleverly designed falls anemically short of required. Within the Obama economic team, academic theory has run its course, predictions failed there delivered with zest benchmarks, billions of dollars have been spent with very little to no results. The cry for the empirically measured is pushing and pulling it way onto the center front of the economic-political mainstay. The Obama economic policy is being dissected, deciphered, and dismissed as counter-productive, wasteful, costly, misdirected, and possibly even counter-intuitive.

Withstanding the measure and failing grade Obama persists…well, November is just around the corner.