I fear the very worst is ahead for us conservatives…

Authored by William Robert Barber

Loudly declared, elections have consequences; this Stimulus Bill is a perfect example.  Of course there are and will be more of these consequences as the electorate views President Obama’s legislative initiatives and persuasion.  But, irrespective of future legislative developments, this Stimulus Bill is an excellent example of liberally inspired partisan over reach; with billions heaped upon billions at risk, contrary to sensibility, the Democratic leaders shout out, “damn the obviously negative, full speed ahead” is the guiding emphasis of these, “now is our time” liberal Democrats.  Country’s interest and sensibility be damned, it matters not that no member has read the legislation or that the law is laden with discrepancies as to its original intent; what matters is that liberal special interest benefits and Obama receives this Bill ASAP.  This Stimulus Bill is the true measure of Congressional competence, as well as, a perfect indication of future Democratic governance.

When politicians, regardless of party, speak of bi-partisan cooperation on legislation, I do find such communicative interface a bit amusing.  They speak as if they are NOT an inherent part of the political food chain; it is as if tigers got together with lions in the interest of high-mindedness and decided, for purposes of harmonious regard to designate certain sectors of geography for hunting by tigers with other areas designated as hunting for lions and that tigers could, by ethical obligation and willful charity share part of their catch with the lions if the lions had a bad hunting day. 

To suggest that the party in power is going to share power or give legislative credit to the opposing party is ludicrous. Elections have consequences; the consequence of Liberals controlling all branches of governing is a dramatic shift to the political left.

In addition to Democratic legislative overreach, measuring the matter of Obama’s deceitfulness is quite sobering to behold; he promises, when seeking the office, transparency, no lobbyist in his administration, a five-day opportunity to review legislation prior to enactment, and when in office does the complete opposite.

I fear the very worst is ahead for us conservatives…

I do believe the a priori causation of this horrific electoral consequence is the arrogant stupidity of the Republicans who managed the government for eight years; the former president, his administration, the leadership of the house and senate abandoned their political principals and created this Liberal agenda to take form and execution.

m

Would Limiting Time in Government Limit Corruption?

Authored by William Robert Barber

Although the applicability to my forthcoming declaration is in scope world-wide, I am only utilizing the governments within the USA as an example; I do NOT believe that governing, withstanding the form is possible without corruption. When I speak of corruption I mean in the full sense and meaning of that dirty-filthy word; examples of my meaning of corruption would certainly encompass the synonyms dishonesty, bribery, and fraud. The governments of the USA have numerous historical instances of defaming indictments, allegations, and outright convictions of the elected, appointed, and the non-elected; governing is obviously a corruptive practice. For any who may doubt my declaration there is a voluminous library of historical documentation of governmental corruption; this documentation is noted in all of the major languages and cultures, such evidence will surely dismiss any thoughts to the contrary.

Corruption is so intrinsic to governing one could not overstep or exaggerate the significant contribution of corruption to the act of governing; indeed, corruption is symbiotic to the art and science of governing. By means overt and covert breaking the law is the natural nature of those in power. No matter the historical benchmark, the political party, or the statesperson’s administration, government is riveted with examples of duplicity, deceitfulness, untruthfulness, treachery and trickery.

That being said and understood one would think that the workings of governing would be scrutinized regularly, audited by unaligned third parties, absolute-mandated ante and post legislative transparency would be the precedent, and term limits would be the law of the land. But wait, my point has been made; corruption has taken on its own life and is running government as it suites the corruptors.

The natural nature of power is corruptive; those in power will, in time, enable directly or indirectly the advancement of corruption. All eyes and ears should be drawn toward this natural state of government; as long as human beings are running the show corruption will be a component of governing. Because the ones governing are humans, with all the frailties inclusive, one must proportionate one’s expectations of virtuous governing with the behavioral dysfunction of those who are governing. Thus, lifetime politicians have more opportunity to enact deeper and everlasting negatives while governing; limiting their time in office naturally limits corruption. The same is true for the appointed.

Let’s take the case of Mr. Daschle, a former law-maker of the Senate, he like the many who have held power close in hand; decided to skate over the thin ice of an obligation and not pay his rightful tax obligation to the IRS. Of course he is sorry. Sorry that he got caught that is; imagine his Democratic colleges have dismissed his crime as a simple understandable mistake, of course for the common citizen evasion of one’s tax is a crime. The fact that one does not understand the law or was not aware of the law pertaining to that particular infraction is not excusable in a court of law. Now Daschle has for many years pasted judgment on the very laws he violated. Of course for reason apparent he is an exception to the rule over the common. That is until public opinion enacted by the NY Times (a liberal sensitive publication) suggested that Timothy Geithner was one tax cheater enough in the Obama administration. So withstanding the Presidents assurance to the people that Mr. Daschle’s tax issue was a harmless oversight he nevertheless allowed one of his key cabinet picks to withdraw. Hooray!

Because the natural state of government and governing is corruptive; a free and skeptical press is essential to a righteous nation; if the press is rendered mute, irrelevant, or enchanted by the sway of a particular politician’s charisma, the system of implied check and balance, the entire structure of an open pluralistic society suffers.

Bureaucracy is the safeguard of corruption; that is why we have so much of it. Ambiguity befriends and enjoins with those legislators who seek befuddlement as a tool to wear out the individual inquiry of why there is no governmental transparency. This is the tactic of lawyers and accountants as they apply their trade upon the laypersons; for hundreds of years the Catholic Church utilized the same tactic of befuddlement on the faithful by holding services in Latin and requiring, by penalty of death that all bibles be in Latin and held only in the providence of priest.

Of course the corruption that is the most evil and damaging is the corruption applied within the rule of statutory laws, this sort of corruption is aligned with the exploitive corruption so often practiced by attorneys wherein a lawsuit is filed on the notion that for the defendant the cost of pursuing justice is too expensive. Therefore the rightful settle the lawsuit for pecuniary reasons not because they are guilty. This sort of within the rule of law corruption is feasible because legislators (most of whom are attorneys) pass the laws that permit this corruptive action to be commonplace; lawsuits are a business tactic; they are no longer the mainstay means to adjudicate wrongfulness.

My belief is that government and governing although necessary is inherently a corruptive enterprise. Therefore, as citizens we must address this reality and not assume or presume any other belief; and surely, we cannot believe, on its face, without evidence, the words of any politician or government agent.

,

Powerful or Less than the Most Powerful.

Authored by:  William Robert Barber

I do not believe that peace defined as the absence of war or state sponsored aggression is a viable reality; indeed, peace as history recalls has only been an interlude a suspension of hostilities, a time set aside so one side or both can devote and focus on readying themselves for the next violent conflict. Of course, every ultra-to-liberal politician, most professional practitioners of Judeo-Christian theology, just about all actors, artisans, and many, many others of varied principles and professions will adamantly disagree with my dire conclusion.

Nevertheless, I am adamant in the veracity of my conclusion; peace, on this earth with these humans is not feasible. Peace is beyond the capacity of human behavior. Since the first city-state, established thousands of years ago, there has never been a lasting period of peace; but I assume, this factual is not sufficient evidence (to those who believe in peace as a policy goal) of its non-existence. Peace, like the Wizard-of-Oz, is a hoax. This hoax is perpetrated by the International Society of the Wish-it-Was in unison with a membership of those whose preference is to transact life and living in the surreality of their own making rather than the reality of the bona fide. Peace in our times…now where did we hear that boast? And what was the result?

Truth be told; the arbitrator of peacefulness is power; all sorts and manner of power. The primary facility of power as expressed by a nation state is the martial wherewithal to suppress or eliminate by means universal, as well as, specific the aggressive inclinations of one’s contenders for one’s wealth and resources. In the real world one’s enemy can in time be one’s starches ally and vice-versa; peoples of the world as exemplified by their nation state are often capricious in their dispose of the most profound. Therefore, trusting in the rational, sensible and reasonable often has little to do with the behavioral present or its immediate aftermath. Diplomacy and discussion are only fruitful when such persuasion is coupled with the power to suppress another’s physical aggressiveness. For example, Israel exists today because, by means extraordinary, it is the most powerful nation in the region; otherwise, there would be no Israel.

Those who profess that the policy of peace for its own sake is a policy of moral sensibility are the greatest of hypocrites. Look about and upon all those who include peace as a policy goal; they all have inherently deceitful flaws, they say what is acceptable and do what is necessary. Their actions are stupendous contradictions of their words; even those who fanatically profess to believe in peace maintain their armies, police, and secret intelligence agencies.

Now, in the present age of nuclear, biological, and gas warfare, the problem of believing in what does not exists feeds a belief that is illusionary in scope with devastating result; belief in the illusionary, the non-existing and impossible prompts stupid inclinations; and such, negating reality could cost millions of lives.

Why is it that we humans, although suffering horrific cost, must learn and then relearn the same lessons over and over again?

Russia and China are contenders for trade, prestige, and power; they know that power is factually tangible only when one is the most powerful. Less than the most powerful is a temporary position assumed by this nation’s contenders as they vie for positioning as the most powerful. Contest is the natural order of all living things — humankind not making an exception.

There is no moral code of honor amongst nation states; power is the only arbitrator of final result. This nation’s people can either be the most powerful or less than the most powerful. Which of these choices would you rather gift upon your children?

.

 The Ruse of Transparency

Authored by:  William Robert Barber

I believe hidden in plain sight is what not only the Obama administration but many state, county and city governments call transparency. The tone of the word transparency has many positive connotations, the public relations hype on the importance of governmental transparency has no public opposition, conceptually, consensus is strong and resolved that transparency should be a governmental requirement not an arbitrary decision. The PR idea is to post via the Internet legislative pending or resulting governmental actions so that the public can scrutinize. The underlining basis of this newly invigorated sponsorship of transparency is the supposition that by publishing legislative action there will be less governmental nonsense, corruption and outright stupidity; after all, the public will be viewing and reviewing, thus, because of transparency, elected officials will be guarded and concerned about a public backlash on issues such as tax increases.

In the interest of understanding this new buzz word of Obama and company: Transparency. A few of the synonyms that help define the word transparency are clearness, lucidity, simplicity; the antonyms would be ambiguity, vagueness, or indistinctness. Now that we have the word transparency defined and boxed into the unmistakable, let’s test its value. Many to a majority of Americans have invested their personal monies into the equity or bond market. The broker-dealers who offer these securities must meet very strict rules and regulations enforced by the SEC in order to submit these investment opportunities to the public. Hence, if there is ever a test as to the veracity of transparency it is those thousands of public traded companies who publish not only a GAAP standard balance sheet but must comply, in the interest of transparency, with a multitude of public filings. A real good example of the real-world merit and veracity of transparency are those balance sheets published by AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros., Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase; the list goes on and on; despite their compliance to strict transparency standards all of these entities were actually impaired and needed federal funds in order to operationally continue. Of course two in my list did go bust after being denied federal cash. So much for the value of transparency!

How many people on this planet can actually read, analysis and interpret the applicable meaningfulness of Bank of America’s balance sheet? Damn few! But even for those few who could understand the bank’s balance sheet the information posted maybe in compliance but it is designed as a record of what happened in arrears; in other words, the real time present is not indicated as a part of GAAP accounting. The real time present accounting is a Performa of anticipation with the well documented and affixed in plain view caveat: This Is a Guess.

My point is that the prevailing transparency of Obama and the like is a ruse, a deception stated boldly in plain view. This ruse is perpetrated by the want-to-be powerful to placate the electorate. Those in power will never allow the public to see with unobstructed simplicity the clarity of their actions.

One more point of transparency, how many legislators read and comprehend the text of the multi-bills, laws, amendments, and word cleverness edits or additions inserted by non elected staff?

Governing is a complex ambiguous business because we have allowed our governing to slip away from our grip. Today even public referendums mean nothing to a lot less; the people have been usurped by the licensed and privileged. This issue of transparency as presented in full view is a sham because of the inherent voluminous library of information, the specificity of the vocabulary presented, and the manner of presentation. True transparency would have layman language, pictures, and DVD explanations, there would be an Internet delivered Q&A component to governmental actions.

It is one thing to print governmental activities in plain view another to do so in a manner of layman comprehension.

.

At What Priuce?

Authored by:  William Robert Barber

It is not a normal occurrence that an incoming administration, will, with grand purposeful intent, create a problem as distinguishable as closing the military prison on Guantanamo. If one is of the liberal persuasion then one must have truly enjoyed the theatrics, timing and follow-up pageantry of the Obama signing. Of course, the solution, which should precede the affirmation of any decision, has not been declared; the President, for reasons of political repute, has inverted the problem-solution equation in favor of the grandiose.

The Panetta nomination follows in suite, with the closing of Guantanamo; Obama is putting together a matching set of stupid decisions. Mr. Panetta, in the throes of a war, with no experience, has accepted a nomination that more than any other office in the land is directly responsible for safeguarding the nation from a terrorist attack. The nominee has a track record of views on the definition of torture, specifically, the practice of waterboarding and enhanced interrogations. Last year he wrote in the Washington Monthly that even if waterboarding could stop the next terrorist attack or suicide bomber, it (waterboarding) should not be permitted. Is it possible that Mr. Panetta might ask for a waiver if family targeted by the terrorist was his or the President’s?

The intelligence community has documented the effectiveness of waterboarding as well as enhanced interrogations inclusive of this documentation are specific instances of success in stopping these terrorist plots. Despite the obvious success of the past Mr. Obama in agreement with his nominee has stated; “No administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ Like waterboarding, head-slapping and extreme temperatures.” These two gentlemen are in agreement on playing paddy-cake, paddy-cake, with terrorist; those very terrorist that killed 3,000 Americans, the very ones that presently plot and plan to kill as many of our nation’s citizens as possible. I often wonder: What planet does Obama-Panetta live on? Surely they have not lived on planet Earth.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-the master mind of 9/11-underwent waterboarding while in CIA custody. Does it follow that closing the Guantanamo prison and bringing this killer of innocence’s to the USA for trial, because he was ‘tortured under Obama rules’ would therefore entail throwing out all the evidence against this terrorist under on the “exclusionary rule” and his case dismissed?

Since 9/11 the US government has targeted terrorist by utilizing armed unmanned aerial vehicles; these targeted persons have not received a trial, the evidence against them has not been examined, they are being assassinated without the right to a fair trial; is this act not a greater sin than torture? Why is it acceptable for the CIA to kill targeted individual of senior al-Qaeda but not use enhance interrogation techniques once captured?

A few questions of Panetta: Obama has stated in certain terms his interest in capturing or killing Osama whether in Pakistan or not; well, let’s say the devil is captured, where would you hold him? And if the mass murder decides not to talk, let’s say, Mr. Panetta, your pretty-please form of interrogation does not entice Osama to spill-the-beans, so you follow your doctrine of no-torture-allowed; in a month, there is a nuclear detonation, a massive conventional series of suicide bombing attacks or a nerve gas explosion in New York City. Naturally, the possibility, indeed more than likely, the probability would be presented that Osama knew of the attack the conclusion would follow that waterboarding or enhance interrogation could have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The issue of grave concern is will President Obama, Mr. Panetta, and all of your friendly liberals that are in allegiance with your ‘stupid techniques’, those of you who live as if in a Pepsi-Cola commercial, those of you who function best in a dimension other than reality, what is the recourse if you all are wrong about the definition of torture?

This entire Obama-Panetta policy of closing Guantanamo before a solution is discovered, of treating terrorist as if they are some NYC street gang; and of managing a war with campaign election rhetoric will not safeguard America. Their failure is forthcoming. The question is at what price.

 

Authored by:  William Robert Barber

Hamas is a Sunni brotherhood. Formed in 1987 and presently lead by Khaled Meshal, who having survived an Israeli assassination in Jordon, now, safely sequestered, he issues orders out of Damascus. Since there has been a Hamas its aim, intent, and mission has been the destruction of Israel; it’s strippenzieher or hauptfuehrer, Iran, (I believe both of these German expressions defines Iran as more than an enthusiastic lobbyist) is and has for years, enabled and advantaged the anti-Jewish hysteria of the region. As evidenced by the recent Gaza bombing by Israeli air and artillery, Gaza is the most recent example of Iranian gratification; Iranian influence on Hamas militancy has successfully positioned Israel with the reasoning for retaliation and for reasons of their own Israel has obliged.

Madness has embroiled these ancient bloodlines; once again, lunacy has driven these peoples of common history to justify the killing of women and children. This story of violent conflict is ten thousand years old; the madness will continue…

Because of United States cultural affiliation, Judeo-Christian heritage and geo-strategic obligations, US interest is embedded in the survival of Israel; obviously, that position is counter to the interest of Hamas, Iran, Syria, as well as, most if not all of the Middle Eastern governments. The Israel-Palestinian mêlée is an argument of intrinsic confrontation that will perpetuate like an internal propulsion engine into infinity. The only answer to resolving the conflict is to re-invent the definition of peace.

Possibly peace for Israel should mean that the less than 1% of its peoples are not being killed or maimed in some aggressive manner by any counter-party. This new definition of peace will allow the Israeli politicians to declare a new era of peace and simply take credit. Of course this new definition is applicable only to Israel, the Palestinians, will stand just as disregarded and manipulated as before; nevertheless, at a minimum one of the parties to the conflict will boast a peaceful existence.

All humanitarian efforts by Western nations, over these many, many, years, the food, clothing, outright cash, or any other sort of ‘give-a ways’ seem to enrich the empowered of the Palestinian peoples instead of the common. Certainly, US resources all supported by its taxpayers, have not made the American government or its people anymore endearing to the Palestinians.

So far, American engagement has shown little benefit…all we really seem to accomplish is to throw money at the wall as if it was mud…to date nothing has stuck.