MR. PRESIDENT, STEP AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY

Authored by Andy Matthews   —   February 1, 2010

“The country has had enough of your fixing, thank you”.

The conventional wisdom has it that President Obama’s most egregious error during his first year in office was his decision to focus the bulk of his attention on health care, rather than on “fixing” the economy.

“At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second,” conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, “the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about.”

Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, he of Cornhusker Kickback infamy, lamented to the Fremont Tribune that “it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy.”

This misplacement of priorities, we are told, explains the precipitous drop in the president’s poll numbers over the past year. Now, a course correction is needed if Obama wants to a) salvage what’s left of his presidency, and b) do right by the country.

The White House got the message. In his State of the Union speech last week, the president told the nation that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” Obama referred to “jobs” 26 times in his speech, more than twice as often as health care or health insurance.

And so it’s agreed: The administration has seen the error of its ways, and from now on, fixing the economy and creating jobs will be Priority One for Team Obama.

Now, not to rain on this fun, bi-partisan agree-a-thon, but isn’t this just about the worst thing we could ask for right now?

If memory serves, the guy who’s telling us he’s now gearing up to “fix” the economy is the same guy who, way back in the year 2009, gave us the historically massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was supposed to … fix the economy.

For those who missed it, Obama’s first take at playing economic Mr. Fix-it didn’t exactly work out as we were told it would. That $787 billion “stimulus” package bought us double-digit unemployment and deficits as far as the eye can see, but that’s about it. Should Americans really be salivating for another helping? Didn’t this guy do enough damage the first time?

Actually, the stimulus debacle did produce two things of enormous value: a teachable moment regarding the administration’s sheer ignorance of all things economic, and the opportunity to watch modern-day liberalism fail so completely and publicly that it may now have been discredited for a generation.

The way to jumpstart a sluggish economy — as anyone who didn’t sleep through the entire 20th Century understands — is to remove governmental barriers to private-sector-driven economic growth. That this point is either entirely lost on or irrelevant to the administration becomes clear when one considers that the stimulus package did the exact opposite: It grew government at the expense of the private sector. The dreadful results were all too predictable. And the ideological rigidity behind the stimulus is exactly what ensures that future attempts by this administration to address our economic challenges will prove no more effective. The only policy solutions with any real hope of succeeding are, by default, kept off the table.

So to say that Obama would have enjoyed a more successful first year had he focused more on the economy misses the point. Any president who so fundamentally misunderstands the reasons why some societies prosper while others remain stagnant is predestined to fail on economic matters. Given this president’s faith in government intervention as the necessary starting point for solving all of society’s problems, anything he touched in the economic realm was destined to go badly — and anything he touches in the future will meet a similar fate. In short, we’ve seen what “focusing on the economy” means to this crowd. And it ain’t pretty. The State of the Union speech — chock full of ideas for new, big-spending initiatives — only confirmed the President’s commitment to his failed strategy.

And so when the president tells us he’s now shifting his focus to the economy, there’s only one serious way to take it: as a threat.

To be sure, President Obama will, through this recalibration, score some short-term political points. By shifting his emphasis to jobs and the economy, he is sending a message to Americans that is sure to be warmly received: Your priorities are my priorities.

But the President’s dogmatic commitment to his statist ideology gives the ending away. Barring a complete reversal of his philosophical bearings, we know that his next attempt to “fix” the economy — and the one after that, and the one after that — will involve increasing the size and scope of government while choking the private sector. As night follows day, things will again get worse, not better.

And the public will begin to long for the days when the president was bogged down in his ill-fated attempt to reform health care.

Andy Matthews is vice president for operations and communications at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

OBAMA: THE POPULIST

Authored by William Robert Barber

“We want our money back. We want our money back! And we’re going to get your money back-every dime, each and every dime.”

Does anyone actually believe the sincerity of President Obama’s declaration? Sounds more like his pledge of CSPAN transparency; wherein, instead of televised real-time transparency, healthcare debates were held behind the closed doors of a Democrats-only caucus. Details of exactness as to the contextual merits of the actual legislation were safely deposited within the mind of the closed-lipped Senator Reid; clearly, Mr. Obama has an issue with truthfulness.

Obama’s ideologically enhanced litany of leftist-progressive political principles has eclipsed his ability to enable and implement the political pragmatism presently required. He just can’t bring himself to adjust to the new political realities. His innately intuitive Chicago breed street smarts have retrograded in favor of his political-ALFA impulses; sensibility has been trounced by populist rhetoric. He insists on scurrilous name calling, threats of punitive taxation, and the blatantly stupid continuum of faux charges that only create market-uncertainty when market-certainly is the requirement.

The TARP funding was uneven in application, simpleton in language, forced into place by the inertia of self-induced panic, and wholly void of the diligence required in general prudent lawmaking behavior. Our esteemed elected officials demonstrated the totality of their incompetence by enacting this monstrosity of discombobulating legislation. Now Mr. Obama wants to change the rules of the TARP funding by enhancing the lending agreement, supposedly, in favor of the government. He has decided that the banks got a good deal and now must pay an arbitrary surtax.

When the too-big-to fail banks received their funding (some forced to take the money) the lender did not contractually specify the governess of a pay-czar, a restriction on bonuses, or an additional tax on revenue; indeed, the government just gave up the funds. Well, by means vested into place by the Federal Reserve, the interest on funds- near zero, the banks paid back the money plus interest.  On top of that many of these banks declared huge profits; Obama declares such actions as the “fat-cats.” Imagine, showing a profit, paying federal/state taxes on such and benefiting their shareholders. How unseemly!

Either we are a country of formal laws or not. Rule by arbitrary legislation is un-American, an indicator of despotic inclination, and a definitive of socialistic governess. Obama and his liberal-progressives cannot run roughshod over the fundamental principles of formal law or the rational precepts of this country’s implied precedence. This president cannot manage, lead, or attempt to govern this nation by ad hoc means; a populist agenda requires substantive rules of evidence. For example, what specifically is the lawful advantage of implementing a bank-tax? And why not tax AIG, GMC, and Chrysler?

Obama with the sleight of a the right populist hand has  the intent to imposed the coercive apparatus of government upon a vital sector of this nation’s economy; while arbitrarily, with the left hand, he supports by the simplicity of tax-exception, other certain government funded entities  that were also too-big to fail.

These Obama gals and guys are lost in the distance between the theories prompted by academic inquiry and the reality-law of imprecise results.

They just do not understand that liberty and freedom, for the peoples of America, is of sublime value; withstanding the surety that is promised as possible by Obama’s political brethren. Americans are not willing to limit their ethos of individualism in exchange for any socialistic utopia.

We should require that before running for the highest office in the land that the candidate must manage a candy-store for 1-year.

DESPITE MEDIA PREFERENCE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Spurred on by a Bush bashing media, a less than convincing John McCain, and an economy unexpectedly turned upside down by an inexplicable financial-banking-insurance calamity, the electorate overwhelmingly voted in Obama and his democratic colleagues. The Democratic Party, with an arrogance that originates from the assurance of ultimate power, unilaterally attempted to turn this politically center-right nation into a leftist-socialist nation state. The leadership of Pelosi and Reid, pumped up by their newfound political potency, decided early in their tenure on the power-tactics of purposeful, excluding Republicans from the legislative process. They have practiced where required the bullying of their Blue Dog Democrats. For key members of congress, the leadership created a milieu of creative offerings; these offerings came in the form of persuasive enticements. Including cash rewards, the specific exemption for a certain state, as well as all unions of their heretofore pecuniary obligation — all of these extraordinary inducements are in play while leadership blatantly ignores the reasonable concerns of the nation’s constituents.

The hagiographic pronouncements of an enchanted-by-Obama media favored the presidential candidate throughout his campaign; indeed, there is observable evidence that this very same mainstream media (in contrast to the customary effort placed on unbiased reporting) has extended its favoritism into the first year of the Obama presidency .This liberal-progressive-socialist president and his brethren of the also elected have heretofore enjoyed, in general, a robust positive cheering of support from a media of like-same-political belief.

In addition to such cheerleading, often enough, the seemingly liberal personalities that host and manage the non-cable networks and its cable affiliates, willingly, often with not even a pretense of presenting a counter-argument, present programming that is an effectual endorsement of Democratic policies. This consistency of press patronage is best described as a Barrack-can-do-no-wrong viewpoint, rendering to the receiving public a politically charged prospective that catalyst a counter-prospective from a constituency of independent and conservative viewers, listeners, and readers. The media-reporting by liberal progressive sympathizers are in fact nothing less than a broadcast of appreciation for Obama’s policies. The liberal media has established a value-plus certification of the current administration’s actions. They have a platform designed more for ideological alliance then a media-platform designed for skeptical journalists.

Interestingly, despite media bias, the facts on the ground cannot be denied; such political consequences are clearly disturbing to the liberal progressives. Imagine loosing the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey and now having the super-blue state of Massachusetts vote red. Well, the unimaginable has happened — Scott Brown the Republican beat the liberal progressive Democrat in the bluest of blue states.

Now how can the liberal-bias spin this election as anything other than a rejection of Obama’s policies? In the finality of result, irrespective of the media’s own political prospective, the American people can think for themselves. The people have, in general, rejected the liberal progressive agenda; specifically the people have rejected the Obama Care legislation, the excessive federal spending, and legislation that adds to the largeness of government. This special election is a great victory for the conservative cause.

OBAMA’S LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVES TO THE RESCUE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Issues of concern for the Obama administration is the ever-growing debt service to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the billions of taxpayer funds at risk over at AIG, Chrysler, and GMC; but no worries, says Obama. No need for consternation is the prepared-delivered-in unanimity assurance of government officials. All the while the very same Obama disciples who stress confidence in their financial-economic initiatives acknowledge the persistence of a historically high unemployment percentage; respective of the plainness of this (historically high unemployment) empirical obvious, they (those within the Obama administration that knows all things) insistence on employing a continuance of more of the same. Another indicator of the administration’s dutiful commitment to practicing the dark and foreboding artfulness of counter-intuitivism is its declared recognition that the employment positives are only in government jobs not private. Hence the administration has decided that it is small business that needs economic assurance so they (those that know just about everything) create policies that work against the interest of small business.

Interestingly, as Obama stresses that we all must simply recognize that turning around this economy is difficult; therefore, the administration’s advice is patience. Obama since October has not mentioned the stimulus; nevertheless, he does, without fanfare or clarification emphasis the need to target economically stressed entities. I personally have no idea what targeting in application actually means. By avoiding the desperate call for federal funding from a number of impaired states, Obama’s economic team has decided to respond to the brewing emotionally charged popular sediment against banks and bonuses. Naturally, the Obama response is to tax; of course, the probability of this tax being legislated into law is farfetched the president and his team did have an excellent photo opportunity.

If they tax the banks then maybe (thinks the Obama economic team) we can move some of that money to cover the Fannie and Freddie open ended multi-billion dollar federally backed credit obligation. Or if that doesn’t fly, maybe help the auto companies feed money into a number one administration objective: Hiring more union workers regardless of market or operational requirements.

The Democratic majority in Congress advises thus: Whether we of the elected (on the merits) are right or whether were wrong it is still better to pass this healthcare legislation. No matter the financial dispose of future consequence, the logical probability of certain integrally harmful pieces and parts or the blatantly obvious constitutional conflict between interconnecting mandates; ignore all. Take no notice; indeed even better close your eyes to the creative budgeting gimmicks. Please simply disregard Nebraska’s exclusion from states’ pecuniary consideration and fee obligations due under this pending legislation. Get over it. Everything in politics cost something. Remember! This healthcare legislation is the single greatest gift that the Democratic Party has ever given to the American people. Oh, and to those in the motherland that may disagree with this legislation: We liberal-progressives are harbingers as well as wizards, we can with absolute surety say, that in time you dissentients are going to love it. Besides most of these naysayers are Republican dupes and tea party radicals. So say the Obama Democrats…

The right of statutory recourse is a quintessential ingredient of American government’s contract with its citizens. Recourse has numerous forms including petitions, elections, referendums, legislation, and law suits. All of these instruments of recourse are traditionally inherent to an American’s rightfulness. Any action by the elected to inhibit, impair, minimize, circumvent, or disregard by means legislative or extralegal a citizen’s right to recourse is considered a violation of governing principles and subject to impeachment. So says Bill Barber. In other words, this next election is the test for constituency acceptance or rejection. The majority in congress are going to do whatever their going to do. And citizens have an obligation to unseat these liberal progressives in favor of conservatives; inclusive to such a result, it is implied that no matter what these socialists impose the new congress can dispose.

MANIPULATIVE POLITICIANS AND IDEOLOGISTS

Authored by William Robert Barber

I am not sure of the details as to when and I would be guessing as to how. But I think at certain times, starting from the beginnings of American history (such times distinguished by crises perceived or real) by extent variant, means implied, methods explicit, politicians seeking to impose an ideological agenda took advantage of the particular crises with one predominate result: To enhance the power of the federal government. Never have the actions of these politicians, prompted by a crisis of design or real, resulted in the abatement of federal power.

Politicians (elected and common) in cahoots with a somewhat willing governmental bureaucracy while purposefully advantaging the historical sociology of an ambivalent often confused, sometimes frightened, citizenry. These very same politicians have deliberately rearranged and often decisively forsaken the constitutionally founded apparatuses of constitutional governing. Their actions, utilizing the imperial-like edits of legislation or ideological edits that spur beneficial initiatives, have willfully violated the long-established nuance, connotation, and consequence of the constitution’s intent. The spirit, even its established meaningfulness, particularly, regarding the constitution’s explicit federal limitations of authority and supremacy over the governess of states and individual citizens, has effectually been challenged. These politicians of liberal progressive persuasion have for all intents and purposes disabled the constitution’s contextual integrity.

Wherein originally, the idea that the founders crafted into documental form the specifically expressed, uniquely American, political belief of limited government has been vacated in favor of the liberal-progressive persuasion or interpretation that the constitution is a ‘living-ever evolving document.’ This decisive white to black change of constitutional reading has rendered a founding document that is subject to revisionism. The practical result of this liberal-progressive-revisionist remake of our constitution’s original intent is a government of boundlessly omnipotent power.

Certainly, since the turn of the 19th century, the federal government’s insatiable uncontrollable inertia for more power has circumvented, violated, or by implication revised the lawful meaningfulness of the nation’s constitution. The consequence of such has seriously threatened the sovereignty of state’s right and diminished the freedom and liberty of individual citizens.

Most importantly or most dastardly for those of conservative principles, these manipulators, masters of lawmaking inventiveness have captured the three most important aspects of governing control: The first is the power to regulate; which in pure form is the unfettered inducement of draconian-like power. Such power in practical terms translate into the power of defining the meaning of legislation. The second is implicit calculation of inducing a legal procedural process wherein the layperson requires expert knowledge or must, at ones personal expense, rely on licensed by the state representative in order for one to protect oneself from governmental abuse. The elected, in majority, govern through the creative manipulation of ambiguously designed legal language that is in perpetual symbiosis with the judicial, as well as, legislative system. The third is the positively presented propagation of the first two aspects of governing control so to initiate a continuum of populous acceptance. This populous acceptance is in coordination with politicians buying votes by promising cash and rewards. Obama was very effective with his promise to level the playing field by giving money to those that pay no federal income tax.

The voting public is now at an interesting political crossroads. Do we Americans want a larger greater government or a smaller less powerful? I do believe Obama has been the perfect picture to go with the words. He is a socialist. He represents bigger and more; irrespective of tea parties, a resistant Republican defense, and an ever growing contrariness to the Obama administration; taxes will go up and government will expand. But the next election is right around the corner and the congressional majority is sticking to stupid. And I do have the faith that America will vote conservative in the next election so with the grace of sensibility and a few Marines the Democrats will lose congressional seats en gros…

OBAMA THE ENABLER

Authored by William Robert Barber

The continuances by politicians, news print, media, pundits, and entertainers posing as journalist, of dancing around the deductively obvious instead of objectively stating the transpiration of a particular event is intellectually stifling. Recently, we experienced a terrorist-crazy load up with explosives, board a US bound plane with the absolutely clear intent of killing everyone on that plane and as many people on the ground in Detroit as possible. This was a premeditated attack by Al-Qaeda; an act of war perpetrated by this nation’s sworn enemy; instead of shipping this crazy to detention in Guantanamo he was issued an attorney, read his rights, and jailed pending a court hearing to determine whether or not he will be detained. This methodology of legal-disposition is bird-brain stupid. This terrorist attacked US citizens, their property, and their institutions — and we treat him as though he robbed a bank.

Withstanding, the Obama administration’s failure to stop this terrorist from boarding the plane in the first cause and experiencing the ignominy of listening to Secretary of Home Land Security on Sunday last tell the national television audience that everything went according to plan, that the system worked, he was a lone wolf, and other etcetera nonsense. The president added coal to the fire by doing the very best he could to not call this terrorist incident a terrorist incident.

The ever so naive Obama is befuddled. After all, he has addressed the reasonableness of extending his hand of peace and tolerance with his speech in Cairo. He has added the rational mixture of “let’s all work together for the common good” and has apologized (repeatedly) for US unilateral aggressiveness; he even eliminated the use of the phrase ‘War on Terror.” And most importantly, as a good faith gesture, he is closing Guantanamo because the prison is an anathema to terrorist, might be terrorist, almost terrorist, Muslims world-wide, and of course without a doubt of hesitation by Obama, such a closing will significantly hamper Al-Qaeda recruiting.

However, this is not the only instance of dancing around the deductively obvious. Congress is addressing the passing of healthcare legislation. Noting that few have actually read the aforesaid, and most who have not read the pending legislation admit that if they read it they would not understand its content. Whatever happened to the concept of prudent oversight and willfully deliberate due diligence? We Americans are allowing the political majority to ramrod critical legislation as if the issue was transparent, commonly decipherable, and opaque. The majority agrees, it is not perfect. Indeed, interestingly, many of the senators that voted for the legislation did so only after insuring their state was except from its pending pecuniary obligations. Blatant payoffs and self-serving earmarks are the sugar Reid utilized to insure the 60-vote requirement. If a private company acted in this manner, the attorney-general would indict for violations, criminal and civil.

In order for the Obama liberal progressive to fashion the nation to accept the transition to socialism, under the guise of ‘for the common good,’ they must stymie all democratic procedures by means within their power, extralegal or by ad-hoc actions. Their goal is to supplement the principle of laws and general rational precepts with an ever enhancing amplitude of governing bureaucracy; the more complex the regulatory compliance, the easier for the socialist to control the process of decision making. The goal of Obama is to take vast powers and legislate under a platform of ordinances and decrees.

The Obama administration coupled with the congressional majority is the single greatest threat to America’s traditional understanding and practice of liberty and freedom.

THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR DIRTY DEED

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democratic Party of Obama has misread the last election and overreached its electoral mandate. It has put most of its eggs into the basket of healthcare and angered the right and the left, and flummoxed the independents. How a political party could infuriate so many in such a short period of time is a bit mysterious. Nevertheless, by the end of next year, one will be able to measure the Obama effect; the midterm elections will quantify and parse the effectiveness or ineptitude of the Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel policies.

It is simply amazing to me how devastating the hubris infection is to those in power; but I have never witnessed any group of politicians as arrogant as the Democratic leadership. Of course they do have an excellent role model to mimic; humility is not an apparent vestige of the president. As a consequence of their arrogance, Reid can outright lie to the American people; he can do so because he knows what’s best, and he actually feels justified in doing so.

In truth, Reid and Pelosi have lost their way; they are in the neither-land of blundering muddle-headedness. The healthcare legislation is no longer a matter of reforming healthcare or servicing the best interest of America; for the Democratic Party, this legislation is now a matter of exercising raw political power simply to render to Caesar a political victory. The Democrats have mounted a malicious and disingenuous attack on all non-supporters of the president’s agenda; they are working feverishly to unbridle themselves from the restraints of democratic procedure. These socialists are focused on implanting monopolistic institutions managed by special commissions, regulators, coupled with a behemoth bureaucracy and the entrenched ideal that the government does all the thinking.

This healthcare legislation is indecipherable, unpredictable, and full of contradictions and conundrums; this is the perfect exemplar of manipulating procedural methodology in the interest of divorcing the spirit of the law to suit the means to an end. Everyone knows the Congressional Budget Office scoring on this was founded on unattainable assumption and presumptions; the CBO detailed sections of deep concern within their report.  It seems to mean nothing to the claptrap of congressional officialdom; seemingly, the only true agenda is Obama politics of wealth redistribution over entrepreneurship.

Ideological animus is the fuel that runs the engine of liberal progressive coteries; their time is now and come hell or the loss of congressional seats, they have drunken the kool-aid and they are all in for a penny or a pound.

Well, they have done their deed and run, contrary to the wishes of the American people… that’s why we have elections.

IN THE INTEREST OF THE COMMON GOOD

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama revolutionaries have successfully attacked the spirit of the constitution; all the while, declaring, “The people have won a great victory.” Naturally, I am speaking of the healthcare bill affectionately called by opponents as ObamaCare. What is interesting is not what is enclosed in the bill; per se, but, what the advocates will not discuss that is implicit in the bill.

What will be innate upon implementation and implicit in the ObamaCare bill in its current form is the emphasis on a much larger size of government. Therefore, powered by means quantitative and quantified, the federal government, enabled by a liberal progressive majority in congress, once again, as if guaranteed, violates the spirit of our formative document. Congress, by the passing of this Obama initiative, has superseded the meaningfulness of the constitution wherein healthcare is now a right of citizenship. The Obama disciples will ignore or contest all constitutional constrains, as well as predictably circumvent any challenges to the federal government’s continuance of growth.

The democratic majority in congress is determined to reform healthcare by throwing out the baby with the bath water. The interest of its liberal progressive contingent is to enable their ideological sense of righteousness; respective that the debt service of its agenda is unsustainable or that the American people are in majority against this legislation. Their response is a unilateral decision that yes, the people are against it now; but once they see the benefits, like all government entitlements, they will love it. These progressives are so damn smart, they know what the people do not know… just amazing.

Coercion has always been ceded to government; withstanding, the power of governance, theoretically, is subject to the people. The problem is, there is no singular tangible located under ones thumb called the government and ‘the people’ is declared by everyone, including the government, as their own; hence, no tangible there either. Such distance from the tangible adds to the ambiguity of being governed and uniquely surrenders to government and its many professional politicians (elected and appointed) the high ground of legal process. The more government is permitted to expand the more time and money will be required to gain access to the legal process.

Congresspersons of the majority party in cahoots with the news media that has taken on their own political agenda and the corruptive inertia of a pompously arrogant federal bureaucracy, all have come together to insure the passage of this ObamaCare monstrosity. Interestingly, congresspersons, the news media, and the federal bureaucracy knows full-well that although healthcare was the subject; the actual intention of the legislation is the conversion of private to public. This conversion or the legislative passing of healthcare from private ownership into the grasp of the government is fodder for the government to tax. Remembering the power to disperse what is taxed is as powerful as the coercive power to tax; hence, the government now controls, via taxation and regulation, a material percentage of the nation’s GNP. Beware! When the call to arms is “from the innovation of a common cause a common purpose;” so says, noted political philosopher F. A. Hayek. Under the guise of social justice the special interest is served is another paraphrase of Mr. Haye

Since the early 1900’s the power of the federal government has increased substantively and inversely so the sovereignty of private entrepreneurship, hampered by the dictates of an ever intrusive government, has abated. This particular legislation is a giant step to the government participation in every aspect of a citizen’s life. All of these because Obama says it’s fair; costly, burdening, intrusive, and inefficient, but Obama thinks it’s fair.

The Democratic Party’s reform of this nation’s healthcare system is a blatant attempt to enrich the American Entitlement State. The ideological or founding premise of this, all but wholly socialist political party, manages to hold simultaneously two contradictory ideas. These Obama democrats believe that the cost of government intrusion into society, in the interest of the common good, will never, as a means of a fare, conflict with the inalienable rights of an individual citizen. They also believe that if those rights are jeopardized, infringed upon, or indeed, superseded, such is tolerable because it affords the interest of the common good. These democrats are not only naive but also deceitful.

Well, we conservatives are armed with the 2010 election…

PAX AMERICANA, Part II

Authored by William Robert Barber

Since the battle of Kadish, a military offensive, provoked ostensibly by Pharaoh Ramses’ concern for Hittite aggression, humankind has considered violent conflict as a viable method of achieving objectives. Ramses was certainly not the first to initiate strategic violence to further a goal. To be sure, one could trace the telltale sign of what was to come thousands of years before there was an Egypt. Neanderthals pictured on cave walls the utility of manmade weapons and tactics for hunting wild animals. While a new species evolved out of Africa, the Homo Sapiens effectively applied the very same utility that the Neanderthals did to hunting animals, to hunting their fellow humans. For these innovative, highly intelligent beings, the conveyance from hunting animals to hunting men was seamless.

From the beginning of recorded history till today, the reason to kill, maim, or enslave a fellow human is specious at best; at worst, the basis is arbitrary, deliberate and discretionary. The causation for humankind’s propensity for conflict bandies between the false premises of want and need. Without cutting and pasting thousands of years of historical documentation to prove my point, pride, glory, silliness, foolishness, evil intent, naiveté, love, hate, incorrect predilections, predisposed-presumptions and assumptions… Actually, the listing of why man willfully slay their fellow man is endless.

Humankind has the sense for reason and rationality and is fully capable of facilitating the nexus of deduction — logic and pragmatic sensibility. We have been taught to understand that all of these descriptive definitions enclosed within the previous sentence aggregate to form the differing between the super intelligent man and solely instinctive beast. But interestingly, this descriptive is profoundly contrasted by man’s constancy for violent conflict. This manmade irrational insistence for violent aggression has, for invader and defender, provocateur and responder, across all cultural divides, managed to create a scenario whereby the use of arms to achieve an objective, no matter the cost to life and property, has been validated as effective.

Order is the antidote for chaos. Chaos is never good; indeed, chaos maybe an indicator of evil. Order requires a dominance of force; however, the permanency or enduring spirit of order also requires a consensus of acceptance by the majority of the people. In other words, chaos increases in proportion to the abatement of order and inversely so; nevertheless, without positive overwhelming consensus, order cannot subdue chaos.

I therefore conclude that dominance by force of arms is the definitive surety for the continuance of peacefulness — and only America has the military wherewithal to offer such a dominance of force.

As I have previously stated, without popular acceptance, forcing peacefulness upon those that behave in a violent warlike manner will be more difficult then less. Consequently, America’s first step should be to forewarn and plainly declare its intention. The second step should be to invoice countries where US forces are based or patrol for the services of enforcing peacefulness.  Or in place of billing countries, the invoice should be directed to commercial entities not domiciled in the United States. The strategy of enforcing peacefulness is to have a greater portion of the cost of enforcement paid by those countries and or commercial entities that benefit from the enforcement services preformed. This invoice will be similar to an insurance policy’s premium for liability coverage. An example of such invoicing by US forces would be the warships protecting the flow of Middle Eastern oil leaving the Persian Gulf for deposit in foreign ports.

America needs to assume global responsibility for peaceful dispose; every nation on earth will benefit and certainly the poor, wretched, disenfranchised, and persecuted. For instance, pirates will be destroyed from within and without; warlords forced to rule with respect for human welfare or else face the wrath of US arms. The People’s Republic of North Korea must be deposed from any authority and operational function; this state is nothing less than rough criminal nation.

Any and all allies of America will directly aid assist, manage a region or target at their cost, or pay an annual fee for the compelling of peacefulness on those who need to be compelled.

Obviously, more than a simple few think me a bit touched for even contemplating such a strategy. To them I say that for the greater part of modern American history, America adhered to a piece meal, head in the sand, let them do it to us first, policy of denial; American politicians closed their eyes to the world and its reality. Didn’t the first half of the 20^th century kill millions of people? Did we not fight two world wars? Was not the First World War the war to end all wars? On a global basis there have been a number of conflicts, wars, and lethal violence; clearly, the cost to peacefulness has been extreme. America must finally visualize the world as it is — not as it wishes it was — and act.

PAX AMERICANA

Authored by William Robert Barber

America is the world’s guarantor; the only super power in the world with the means to indemnify against any hostile action anywhere on the globe. American forces are dispersed on every continent, in every seaway our ships and submarines are present. Many nations depend on the presence of US forces as the additional surety that their much needed resources will reach their ports; world-wide commerce, to some material effect, would be jeopardized if not for the force of US arms.

The effectiveness of US arms is not only important for commerce. For example, how much of a deterrent would NATO be to aggressor forces without America? Would the UN even bother to meet without American participation? Would the world be safer without America’s lead in its military alliances? Since 1945, the world is safer not because of America’s force of persuasion; but, because of its force of arms. Obviously, a show of force is never enough; it must be coupled with a willingness to commit such forces to combat.

The American military insures that oil arrives in Japan, Korea, China, and on to its shores. New York and Miami represent the international business city of choice for Europe and all countries south as Texas; Los Angeles is the gateway to the Pacific and Asia. America is the largest consumer nation that has ever existed; it also has the most lethal sophisticated, combat experienced armed forces in the world. Only America’s martial forces are distributed all over the globe; unlike any other nation in the world, America is ideally suited to enforce peacefulness.

Since history has been recorded, warfare has existed. Violence is the addition of humankind. For reasons unreasonable, even irrational, there are nation states that are hell bent on creating chaos to merely service their wanting. Nation states are prompted into the compliance of peacefulness not by some internationally accepted moral obligatory but by the use of power. Power is used to compel.  The power to compel must provoke the counter party into compliance; anything short of abrupt and immediate compliance is simply diplomatic gimmickry.  There are alternatives to military intervention that may compel a belligerent nation to peacefulness; nevertheless, tradition has proven, without the unilateral willingness to use military intervention, other forms of persuasion are no more than an ineffective ruse.

North Korea survived the Korean Conflict because America lacked the will to complete the task. Today Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran is positioning itself to evangelize the Middle East with its branding of Shiite hegemony. Soon, Iran will have the nuclear capacity to deliver an atom bomb. Syria is eager to control Lebanon.  All did, do now, and will continue to support America’s enemies; such support certainly includes Israel’s nemesis Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian militant factions. Iran has reached over as far away as Venezuela so to embarrass the United States. At its pleasure, Iran by military and political means, strives to destabilize Iraq.

Selling to the same consumers, China is in competition with India over labor pricing and manufacturing. India fears Pakistan and their ambitions in the Kashmir. Pakistan is fighting a war to keep the Taliban at arm’s length. Pakistan is a nuclear armed nation that has no respectful regard for US interest; factually, the country is politically unstable and its people are ambivalent to American aid and assistance.

Russia is managed with an iron hand by Putin and company. The ideal for Mother Russia is to control their historical sector of influence. Their interest is not restricted to former members’ countries of the Soviet Union but the ultimate prize of prizes is to manipulate the European Union; this manipulation, in their mind, is achievable through the controlled distribution of natural gas and oil.

The only country on earth that can effectively counter these threats to peacefulness is America.