AMERICA’S POLICY OF DENIAL AND HALF-MEASURES

Authored by William Robert Barber

I am 65 years of age; old enough to have fought in the Vietnam War. If I was 85 years old, I could have fought in WWI; if 76, I could have participated in the Korean Conflict. If 99 years of age, WWI and if just a little older, the Spanish-American War. Sadly, the children of those that fought in Vietnam are now killing, dying, maiming, and being maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since its inception, America has engaged in a number of benchmark hostilities; these events coupled set the standard of this nation’s history. Withstanding America’s long and consistent narrative of warlike behavior, it would be wrongheaded to suggest that successive administrations, from different political affiliations that extend as far back as the Spanish-American War, was all war-mongering Philistines, indifferent to utilizing peaceful means to settle conflicting interest.

Instead, I think the world is, has been, and more than likely will always be, a hostile environment. I also believe that peace as commonly defined is a delusion. Factually, peace has not ever existed and does not now exist. To push the denial just a bit further, I do believe that peace, as popularly defined, is unattainable. If one agrees with these hypotheses, then it follows that a foreign policy designed to establish or attain peace is an illusionary goal, unworthy of effort.

Our current policy is immersed in issues of lethal proportion. I deduce that there has never been a more dangerous time for America. Religious zealots of Muslim origin have submitted to a doctrine of holy war against the West and specifically against the Anglo Christian peoples of the world. It is their intent to destroy the Judeo-Christian alliance by either converting or killing them.

This nation has many enemies which would include North Korea, Iran, Syria, and their martial compatriots. These are the very same provocateurs of terrorism that pledge destruction while complimenting such pledges with exemplifying horrific behavior. To negotiate with those that espouses destruction as a means to their end is not only a waste of effort but takes the nation off focus. Just because our state department creates an unsubstantiated assumption that such negotiations are in the interest of peacefulness, does not mean that in real terms such actions will transmute a negative into a positive. Such head-in-the-sand approach to reality is only an acknowledgement of wishful diplomacy which will never substitute artful statecraft.

Our present action and counter-action will not settle our disagreements; at best our efforts only prolong the inevitable. At worst, putting off the inevitable (war) only strengthens the counter parties’ military might and enforces the counter parties’ belief that as part of their diplomatic efforts, America will not utilize military might to achieve a goal. Clearly, the Obama administration will not go to war to preserve or protect America’s interest. As a consequence, any and all efforts are not sufficient of a deterrent to counter North Korea, Iran, or Syria’s intent on executing war-like measures detrimental to this nation’s interest.

The Obama administration did not set a precedent; even Bush would not commit American might as it should have been deployed. America somehow has taken on the presumption that the exercise of power is inherently a limited act. How absolutely absurd; but is that not our policy?

At a minimum, at least since the ending portion of WWII, our administrations, in unison with congress, have tasked our armed forces with missions that they deem necessary while hampering our forces’ ability to wage war.

For example, Eisenhower’s decision to allow the Russians to take Berlin; Roosevelt and Truman’s ineptness at understanding Russian intentions while dealing directly with a brutal dictator — the very same person that signed a treaty with Hitler and participated in the invasion of Poland; Stalin was a rat and still, these two presidents looked away from the obvious. Imagine, America had the strongest navy and army in the world, logistically in place, with the atomic bomb — and within five years after the end of WWII, freedom-loving peoples still lost China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin.

We committed our forces to Korea to stop and impede an invasion from the north. Right there, at that very moment, this nation’s leaders should have known we were in trouble. Stop and impede is not wiping out the root of North Korean aggressiveness. It is instead the equivalent of pushing the bully back rather than smashing him in the nose, gouging out his eyes, and breaking both his arms. Today, because of our faint-hearted unwillingness to destroy North Korean command, control, and political hierarchy, North Korea is a rouge totalitarian nation armed with nuclear weapons.

Eisenhower enabled the CIA to recruit, train, and arm Cuban dissidents; he promised air support for their invasion. Kennedy permitted the invasion to go forward but reneged on air support… the invasion failed. This demonstration of weakness and timidity, this blatant disregard for those lives within the invasion force, bolstered Castro’s image and prestige. Domestically and throughout the world, Castro confirmed that America can be managed and manipulated; it also verified that American resolve is limited. Khrushchev and his politburo were watching.

President Kennedy is credited with ending the Cuban missile threat — which only existed because we did not invade Cuba!

Laos and Vietnam are other examples of America’s inability to commit to a foreign policy task; at the time, we actually believed that a show of force was enough. How very silly of us. Such harebrained behavior all stems from a canon of foolish naïveté; this American doctrine of naïveté established precedence that is very hard to overcome. After all, our presidents want to be re-elected or revered; elected representatives want the wind at their back; the entire objective is retention of power, therefore the concern is safeguarding political interest. Hence, a guiding rule of the elected applied: Controversy in any form should be avoided.

From a strategic, even tactical prospective, in order to disable the North Vietnamese from invading the South Vietnamese, the United States should have invaded the North. That should have been the minimum requirement for engagement; if congress disapproved of such an invasion then it would be clear that America could not support the South Vietnamese people. But once again the policy half-measure won the argument and 58,000 or so Americans, not to mention many thousands more of Vietnamese, lost their lives because of the bewildering incompetence of the administration(s) and congress(es).

Soon, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver and America is immersed in the utility of the same head-in-the-sand foreign policy; a policy of half-measure and denial. This administration (not unlike the many that preceded Teddy Roosevelt) will not accept the reality of world affairs and as a consequence, there are two distinctive operating dimensions. One is the department-agencies of state and the other real-time reality. Neither seems impaired by the existence of the other.

However, unlike the foreign policy challenges of yesterday, this time the threat has the biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to choose from. This particular threat has demonstrated its resolve by killing thousands of innocents (regardless of their sameness of religion); what they want, no sane person or state can give them. There is nothing to negotiate over, no other options are open to the West, except deterrence by any and all means.

But instead of addressing the issue unilaterally and head-on, the Obama administration is contemplating self-invented options where no option exists. Obama will inevitably break with half-measure and just execute a full measure of denial.

Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon; neither Israel nor the United States will act to eliminate this threat to Middle East stability. There will be no embargo or blockade, the UN will accept an Iranian declaration that these weapons are for defensive measures only; Obama and Clinton will submit to the UN acceptance.

Iranian prestige will rise, particularly amongst the hard-line fringe of Islamic militarism. Syria notes the weakness and re-establishes final control of Lebanon. The political-terrorist tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas will be validated; by any and all means the radical elements of Islam will dominate over the moderate. The stage will be set for WWIII…

THE WISTFULNESS OF AN IDEAL SOCIETY

Authored by William Robert Barber

The triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid represents the culmination of more than a century of governmental ingress into the affairs of its citizens. The triumvirate is no less than a continuance of governmental dominance over the once closely guarded liberties of the American citizen. I do believe their appearance of all-knowing, cloaked as liberal progressivism, now has evolved into a pervasive, do-it-the-way-I-insist, Pelosi/Reid legislative doctrinaire. They have forced through congress a Healthcare Bill despite the ever growing consequences; they have formed an alliance of the ideologically inspired all pledged to commit, if necessary, seppuku in order to advance the president’s socialistic agenda.

This liberal progressive movement espoused, in varying degrees of effectiveness by Democratic, as well as Republican administrations, was started in the beginning of the 1900’s. The concept that government had/has a larger role to play in society prevailed over those of traditional thoughts. Legislation enforced the initial progressive concept, government grew into predominance; effectually, the people traded their liberty for the notion that government could take better care of their primal needs than themselves.

I believe that the impetus, that engine the prevailing thought of liberal progressivism, is not just a falsity of premise; but instead, a premeditated act of fraudulent inducement of gigantic proportion. In other words, with willful forethought the elected, the special interest non-elected, the appointed, and those politicians (in office or out) that contrive for pecuniary gain have utilized all resources and measures, be it statutory compliant or extralegal, to maneuver — manipulate and otherwise induce — the American people to forfeit their individual liberty for the promise of what was either never delivered or delivered at a price or means of conveyance substantially different than promised.

Fascism, communism, and most of the variances of popular socialism all have the one commonality: The ideal of perfection; this ideal is founded on the supposition of a conceived intrinsic to socialistic doctrine; a covenant that takes on the guise of a sublime moral righteousness. This basis of such righteousness is identified by the following subtexts.

1. The rhetorical exploitation of reversed popular xenophobia, (delivered by a heroic orator) for example, the liberal progressives blame the unnamed ‘far-right people’ (formally known as conservatives) that are out to get the people of color. Scurrilously, and with pontificating manner, they express their outrage. For example, one such outrage is that racist or near-racist ‘feelings’ are still apart of America’s society; this is always coupled with the steadfast historical go-to pronouncement of economic-prevalent societal class disparity.
2. The commonality of ‘isms’ continue with the assertion (always without evidence) that certain persons (Dick Cheney) are declared persons of evil intent. This usually is followed up with a list of evil doers; such as traditional institutions (CIA), political parties, private and public traded entities (insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers), and finally, contrary belief systems, both secular and religious.
3. There is or looms a crisis of such proportion that the nation state will suffer irreversible consequences if power normally held within the providence of congress, parliament, or bundestag is not ceded to the governing administration in the immediate.

The false hope of the ideal has repetitively, for thousands of years, prompted humankind into action. This all too human inclination to create, establish and embrace perfect has tantalized, intrigued and obsessed humanity. Most intensely, since the alchemist pledged the transmuting of baser metals into gold the false hope of establishing socio-political economic systems of ideal principles has always resulted with a governing system (benevolent or not) of autocratic-tyranny. The concept of achieving the ideal political and economic system, even though the ideal predicts consequences more subjective than objective, such ambiguity of message does not deter the proponents of these ‘isms’; seemingly, the receptive recipients of these messages-of-falsity prefer the subjective requiring no substantial evidence.

The concept of a perfect society governed by the most righteous and wise has experienced (even though they have always failed upon application) gratuitous appeal and almost immediate popular acceptance. Plato may have been the first liberal progressive; surely, ‘The Republic’ and its ideal philosopher-king concept of the perfect system rings, for a liberal progressive, as a plausible beginning of governing sensibility. The Obama believers now have sophisticated Plato’s original concept with the reality-application of Pelosi and Reid.

I call this ideal or idea of perfection a false hope. It is a falsity of premise because the ending is, with rare historical exception, the antitheses of their stated result.

In order to impose the ideal upon a society, individual liberty must and will subordinate to the supremacy of the state. History has proven time and time again that this ideal system of governing is a pseudo-choice, fabricated by the politically naïve in collaboration with the idealistically inclined who view the world more as an academic project than as a world of lethal conflicting interest. These propagators of liberal persuasion esteem a United Nations approach to worldly issues and concerns. The concept of a perfect government or the implementation of an ideal society requires every segment of human behavior to adhere and comply. Compliance and adherence require, as a natural consequence, draconian application. Such an application defeats the very idea of an ideal government or society.

History has documented the consequence of the first triumvirate that outcome destroyed even the semblance of a Roman Republic. The price of liberty is self-reliance, the spirit of essentialism, vigorous participation in one’s government, a steadfast mistrust of politicians, as well as government.

The ideals expounded by liberal progressives are a ruse, a falsity, a contextual of false hope; liberty is too precious to trade for government dominance and ingress…

NOVEMBER 3, 2009 AND BEYOND

Authored by William Robert Barber

The election results of Tuesday, November 3, 2009 were classic and pivotal. The Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey did signal a vector to the political right. I believe the Democratics’ defeat indicates that citizens are wrestling with the “whole truth” of the entire Obama-Pelosi-Reid concept of governing. The results of the most recent national election is no longer an indicator of future electoral outcomes; “In the spirit of change we can believe in,” things have changed.

Voters are specifically apprehensive on three topics: The economy, the deficit, and the nation’s high percentage of unemployed. The Democratic response to all of these voter concerns is a 2,000 page document of ambiguous nonsense called Universal Healthcare. Then there is the dead-on-arrival-at-the-Senate Cap & Trade Bill; the one that passed the house of Pelosi with six Republican votes. This, followed up with Geithner’s treasury, seeking to enhance its power by undermining the means of entrepreneurs. All the while, the TARP and Obama stimulus folks are busy spending — or should I say, giving away — billions of dollars to either Democratic political interest or simply issuing these billions into the Obama department of the abyss. Now if this is not enough to angry voters, the Democratic majority is knee-deep in creating the largest deficit ever while Mr. Biden and company are inventing the number of jobs created or saved.

Respective of the results of the last election, one cannot lose sight of the political objective, the one continuum of vigilant regard, the never ending fight for conservative principles and values. Winning an election or not, it’s never over.

Prepare for 2010. This is an election of all-or-nothing consequence; the true test of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama’s governing acceptance. This election will be the definitive affirmation or discard of the liberal progressives’ brand of governing America.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE

Authored by William Robert Barber

There was a time, not so long ago, not unlike our present, when this government — in cahoots with those of the elected — serviced its governing policies with an attitude of belligerent disregard. Concerns for the nation’s constituents were shelved into abeyance in favor of servicing person, special interest, or party. As a matter of commonality a nominal of the elected cheated, lied, deceived, and institutionally endorsed inhuman treatment against peoples within our borders while the many did little or nothing to right the wrong. Today those within and outside of congress speak of civility lost; many note that common courtesy is considered uncommon. I think these persons of complaint are rewriting congressional history. In congresses past, a scurrilous descriptive or two was heralded at the opposition as leisurely as spitting into a spittoon. Petty squabbles were settled with cane, knife, or gun. With little protest, Manifest Destiny prompted US policy, America outstretched its boundaries to capture its perception of destiny by means extralegal, amoral, and immoral. History is the behavioral proctor and witness of government’s insatiable appetite for more — more in size and power, more in all things measurable.

Government cannot and should never be trusted. Government is an abused instrument, utilized mostly and most proficiently by the few; while the many sit by the way side of events with their hands undecided on where to place them: On their eyes, ears, or mouth. The few are mostly attorneys. Whether elected or appointed (regarding their professional behavior), their contributing positives are in perpetual contest with their negatives. When the attorney is reincarnated into a politician, the lethal entity is formed. Coupled with no term limits and armed with the ambiguity of legalese, plus the additional weapons of befuddlement and misdirection as their side arms… citizens beware!

Although proud to be an American, one cannot think of government as anything less than an operating entity that will violate its own constitution. Such violations of the constitution have happened in the past, are happening in the present, and surely will happen in the future. The government is an instrument; that instrument is as good an adherent to constitutional standards as the people who manage its branches of governing, a free press, and the vigilance of the voting populus.

Remembering that it was that greatest of the great (until Obama) liberal presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an advocate of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the disenfranchised; nevertheless, it was he and his enabler — the government of the United States — that in WWII sequestered all Japanese Americans in camps guarded by Americans soldiers, with no right of recourse, the president and congress divested these Americans of their homes, business holdings, and tangible values.

The difference between the America of old and now is the sheer size of the American government. As a nation we can no longer tolerate petty squabbles and belligerent disregard; but most importantly, we cannot tolerate corruption. Our government is so corrupt we cannot mend nor fix it — we can only recreate.

We as a nation have lost our way; we are meandering about. Influenced by too many illusionary options, seeking short cuts our local, state, and federal governments are too busy chasing what does not exist. They have lost their legacy and their vision of where to go. More interested in promoting a tax base than prudence, governments have forfeited their presumption of virtuous naiveté. By any means draconian or ideological, government wants the tax revenue.

The battle cry of governments: Promise anything, invent any story, tell any lie — but get me the money…

“OBAMA IS AVERAGE” – Der Spiegel Interview w/ Charles Krauthammer

www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,656501,00.html

WHO IS DOING THE THINKING?

Authored by William Robert Barber

A guiding rule for Marines and Politicians to live by: Assumptions, presumptions and unfounded predeterminations will get one killed in combat. Congress is about to act on healthcare legislation by calculating assumptions, presumptions, and unfounded predeterminations as if such were substantive empirically founded evidence. In other words, congress is presenting the healthcare legislation on an unproven starting point; they are at best making a guess, at worse, substituting an ideological premise for proof.

The advocates of “Obama care” are heralding a number of beliefs as if it is true. They are offing a presupposition or hypothesis and passing it off as truth. These liberal-progressive believers of universal health care are, consciously or not, are confusing what is alleged to be truthful with the factual. Their basis of facts, if given the utmost of thoughtfulness and positive interpretation, could only reach a level of extremely likely to be true; but extremely likely is still a guess. The fact remains: Their healthcare proposal is not deficit neutral; it is instead a cause for increasing taxes which will still require the government to subsidize which effectively increases the federal deficit.

Universal health coverage is a liberal ideal which has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, prudent practice, or the sensible application of a policy; the liberal progressives have decided that every American is due this new totally manufactured entitlement. This is their current holy grail, their sense of fairness.

Instead of putting an effort into improving the current healthcare and delivery system by working with with state governments, medical service providers, and insurance companies, congress is about to make a blind bet on up to 20% of the nation’s economy.

Certainly there is sufficient evidence of government ineptness as to its ability to administrate, within budgetary guidelines, existing government entities; surely, congress will not model a futuristic government program (Healthcare) after these operating models.

The Obama progressives follow the lead of ideology over sensibility; respective of empirical evidence to the contrary they are compelled to walk off the cliff in order to service their belief that socialism is the better operating model for America’s economy.

Unfortunately their economic model is to simply print more money…

OBAMA IDEOLOGY VERSUS SENSIBILITY

Authored by William Robert Barber

The kinetic effect of Obama policies has resulted in political pundits wondering aloud while Democrats, caught in the open field between problem and solution, try to validate the administration’s lackluster performance on the Obama stimulus. Republicans with a solid degree of deductive logic but little resulting oomph, point and denounce. Congress is adrift. The house and senate are suffering from the benign neglect of presidential leadership. Obama makes many speeches, withstanding, and to the chagrin of many within the majority, the president shows no signs of any “yes, that’s my healthcare bill, follow me.”

Questions abound as to the economic-fiscal objective of the administration; one needs to only view the administration’s domestic priorities to provoke the Abbot & Lou Costello query as to who is on first. We Americans have always prided ourselves as a practical let’s-get-to-the-point people with a nose for what works. In stark contrast are the Obama democrats who, in the first cause, value their political ideology and dismiss the substantive value of result.

Obviously, this is a Democratic Party that serviced the nation better as the “loyal opposition”. Pelosi and Reid are the ideal examples of imprudent governing. Congress is in the nonsensical hot pursuit of only-God-knows what. The people who actually pay individual income taxes are baffled, befuddled, and confused by a congress that puts healthcare in front of abating rising unemployment.

As the liberals place their legislative leverage on nationalizing healthcare, the pending Cap & Trade bill, the unrelenting push for green energy, the ideals of socialism, and the protection of government largeness. Entrepreneurs, the very sector of our economy that provide jobs, must place cash bets on the future hesitate. The nation’s international and domestic problems are lethally concerning, and all the government seems interested in is extending unemployment benefits and cash for clunkers. The most adventurous consumers remain neutral to negative while awaiting the effects of the new government imposed Obama-synthesis. In the meantime, confidences belated, the people are saving their cash and waiting for the next Obama giveaway.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, congress, instead of considering a small business tax incentive to help mitigate risk — a legislative maneuver that directly prompts small business growth and creates jobs — is too busy fighting a steadfast resistance to a government subjugated national healthcare agenda.

Obama has disseminated to all who will hear his mea culpa for America’s multitude of aggressive transgressions. Assuring to one and every that the era of US unilateralism is over; pointing out with personal bravado that global peacefulness coupled with nuclear disarmament is within reach. As noted in his Cairo speech, another mea culpa, Obama pledged that America would no longer infuriate Muslims with its one-sided pro-Israel policy. The people of the world should know that finally reason and sanity are at hand. According to Obama’s very words, all should be comforted by his sense of righteousness; after all, the lion and the lamb are cuddled by his side. Obama will be the orb’s saving grace; certainly, the hierarchy of Alfred Nobel’s legacy must believe that Obama is The One.

Despite my attempt at comedic satire, the reason the stimulus is not working is rather simple. The simple reason is that Democratic Party cannot create a fiscal policy that contradicts their social engineered economic-political ideology. They believe, just like Lenin that once the masses are dependant on the benefits of a nanny government, they will finally understand the wisdom of their legislation. Then the people — well, not all the people, but surely the disenfranchised, the illegal, the poor, and destitute (surely this country is full of these less fortunate), — will finally appreciate a loving, kind, generous, more heartfelt super-government.

I need to emphasize that the reason Obama’s government cannot turn to the practical economics of what works is that such a turn would nullify their political being.

Air, in the real world, is lighter than water — but not in Obama land. In Obama land the presumption is that capitalism is evil — or pretty darn close to evil. The Obama chosen team of economic advisors: Summers, Geithner, Romer, and Emanuel have never risked their capital in the marketplace, hired anyone utilizing their own capital, made a business judgment in the face of competition, or failed at trying to make a buck from the marketplace. They have read books and passed tests; they have learned to game out their play and play their game. But they are clueless when it comes to how to buy or manufacture or sell any product utilizing non-government capital; these politically inspired guessers have never functioned at the risk of losing their money within a competitive global marketplace. Surely, although from time to time pretending otherwise, they are not harbingers or super heroes. They are ideologues guided by some academic theory of inductive predetermination. They have predetermined a socialistic agenda and are now forcing the means to fit into that end.

The basis of all socialistic government rests on excessive taxation, favored union status, national healthcare, a whole bunch of government employees, funding the education system, and through such funding (the government) significantly influences the teaching staff (government employees) as well as the contextual of students’ text books and academic curriculum. Additionally – and most importantly – a socialist government has an overpowering monopoly on the distribution of tax revenue.

When political ideology triumphs sensibility, as evidenced by the Obama administration, congress misdirects its priorities and, as we of the electorate regularly witness, legislators flounder about in a continuum of behavioral dysfunction. America is not Obama land; this nonsense must end in 2010.

OBAMA’S UNITED NATIONS AMBITIONS

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do understand that differing opinions are natural; I concede the need for a variety of opinions. I am convinced that in order to achieve the ‘best efforts’ in defining of a problem-solution, differing opinions are indispensable to any prudent discovery. When the topic of discussion is political in nature, divergence of opinions will enable disagreements. Clearly, I comprehend the obviousness of inevitable disagreement; such to and fro are fundamental to the process of logical deduction.

Respective of my previous paragraph, understanding that I am a conservative by thought and action, I was shocked to my core when I heard and then read Obama’s speech at the UN. Emphatically, that speech, literally and in spirit, put me on Mars and Obama on Venus. The President of the United States actuates his behavior like a Harvard professor of political philosophy instead of the leader of the free world. He speaks with the confidence that all of us Americans reside in a protective impenetrable sphere wherein attack by a hostile power is impossible. The basis of Obama’s international policy seems captured in the world as he wishes it was, instead of the world that exists; Russia and China will eat his heart and Iran will settle for the scraps.

I have a hard time accepting the liberal-progressives’ belief that the UN is a viable foreign policy tool. Are Obama and cohorts so naïve, so blatantly innocent and childlike in their Liberal-Progressive belief system that they will actually depend on the UN to facilitate US foreign policy initiatives? Have they no empirical sensibilities?

Possibly, Obama merely believes that the separation between Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran is nothing more than a grandiose misunderstanding; maybe it is a simple matter of idiom or semantics, some cultural misinterpretation or something to do with George Bush’s legacy. Admittedly, I am mystified by the Obama administration’s intentions… I do ask myself if my conservative prospective is acting as an intellectual blocking mechanism. I cannot see the Obama foreign policy intent or incentive as such policies interface with the United Nations. Is my inability to see the Obama policy as projected by his administration because I am blinded by my own ideological beliefs?

It is a reasonable guideline of prudence to sophisticate the contextual of an argument when the final sum of the argument could effectuate an at-all-cost result. If Obama has his way, Israel is on its own. The United States will not go to its aid if Iran transcends its covert attack on Israel in favor of an overt attack on its territory. Such an attack will surely follow an Israeli military attempt to blow up Iran’s nuclear facilities; hence Israel will not attack. Iran will have the weapon of mass destruction and eventually, by means direct or indirect, Israel will suffer its effect.

Obama’s general political philosophy and political ideology will enable our enemies; America, the once stalwart defender of all international transactions, the shining light of a once mighty contra to Russian interest, will unilaterally cede its power; all of this will come to form because Obama’s Liberal-Progressives believe in the interest of moral righteousness over sensibility.

The UN is a cabal of misfits, a loose confederation of usually disharmonious, self-dealing affiliates, whose only interest – other than the persistent pleadings of contrived contrarian’s posing as nation-states – is the perpetuation of the nonsensical and farce. Obama should feel especially welcomed.

ONE AND ONE EQUALS THREE?

Authored by William Robert Barber

I don’t know why we horse around with the concept of government operated healthcare… If Obama was really serious he would require 45 minutes of exercise a day administered by a Department of Exercise certified trainer; all candies, soft drinks, sugar intake would be determined by the Agency of Sugar Restriction. Every quarter, The Department of Correct Proportion would measure every citizen’s weight, waist, and thigh (illegals excluded), and if a citizen did not conform to the correct proportion within a given period of time, the citizen would be fined 10% of their monthly income. Every six months out of compliance the fine would be doubled. If a citizen would not adhere to all of the healthcare requirements, he would be locked up in a federally managed facility wherein compliance is administered.

Those that swallowed liquor, smoked tobacco, took any non-medication drug, or engaged in substance abuse of any descriptive would be banished from the general community and forced into a separate containment area until their violations were corrected. Of course some exceptions might be needed for national security purposes; for example the president being a smoker.

Naturally, Obama care will never outlaw sugar intake nor, will it mandate exercise or limit calorie digestion. Instead, the Democrats and their leader Obama will find a way to tax it for the benefit of the state.

I consider Obama care more than just an excuse to levy; more importantly, Obama care is a means to deprive citizens of their right to act in a manner that the Obama administration thinks is not healthy. With outrageous contradiction, his administrations are the very best bait and switch practitioners ever to occupy the White House. If for instance it is accepted that smoking tobacco is unhealthy or that drinking alcoholic drinks is a catalyst for injurious results, why is it that the government, via taxation, profits? Why does Government issue licenses for a fee so that distribution of harmful substance is permissible for consumption?

The incursion by government into the private life of every citizen has grown appreciably since the invention of electricity, gasoline, the combustible engine, and the telephone. The internet has eliminated privacy as we had known its definition for hundreds of years. Today there is no hiding from the means of and for the discovery of the most personal of information. Hence individual liberties like never before are under siege by those who assume to do the thinking for us common folks.

The Obama healthcare proposal is a direct continuance into more government incursion and management of the under and over behavior of the average American. Healthcare is just one of the many as to government insistence on abating individual privacy and in so doing curtailing, restricting, and belittling traditional individual liberties. Imagine, with Obama care, the IRS will monitor your personal bank account to insure a payment if one does not willingly pay for health coverage.

Obama care is nothing more than another ruse. The president and his liberal progressives are socialists at best, fascists at worst, whose interest is to establish even more boldly an obese federal government that dominates all material aspects of this country; indeed, the president, if given the opportunity, will skirt the implied, the spirit, and the literal of our Constitution to serve his definition of what is best.

Obama is a dangerous politician. He holds sway over the many by avoiding definitive specifics; he is the personification of one who favors the subjective over the objective; one who willfully substitutes truthfulness for rhetorical eloquence. In Obama’s belief system one and one equals three or indeed any sum Obama says it does; and the multitude follow.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/14/saving_one_million_jobs_at_787000_per_job_97404.html

IDEOLOGICAL COMPLIANCE

Authored by William Robert Barber

I wonder if the defining difference between conservative and liberal is as advertised. Wherein, the one considers limited government the ideal; while the other thinks the contrary; or the belief in unlimited government power and influence? If we track the political behavior of both ideologies, the evidence appears to be that when these differing ideologies utilize the venue of political parties, they seem in commonality with the overt-purposeful enlargement of government. The reputed diametrically opposed political ideologies have embraced identical results; these results of governing are exampled in the quantity of government’s enormity; the magnitude of government’s expansive legal authority, as well as government’s insatiable appetite for the swelling of its tax base.

Certainly, the Obama administration has brightened the difference between ideologies that create political ideals. As the song goes, “I can see clearly now,” without a doubt has stepped up the blue-in-blue and conversely in response the red-in-red really shines. I have some reason to hope that the Republicans learned their lesson and will govern with conservative principles — but then, I have been disappointed before. By gosh, when I see the Democrats and their policies, I am frighten to my bone.

I voted for Republicans because the alternative was overtly contrary to my sensibilities. I certainly have supported, with cash and means, political entities that I thought supported my political ideals; however, I did so with the expectation of less rather than more. Regretfully, I have never been disappointed.

History has documented many, many instances of office holders that served this nation honorably; nevertheless, the contrary is just as true. Withstanding history and its conclusions, today’s current events are very troubling.

Congress by its vastness with its complex ambiguity of endless rules, regulatory departments, agencies, and powerful committees, has purposefully distanced itself from the people. The elected offer cash rewards to those that pay no income taxes; the concept of taking from the wealthy is an economic disaster in the wait; the proposed tax increase (elimination of the Bush tax cut, among others), imposed on the small business, will abate fiscal viability and impair growth. The printing of currency is diluting the value of the US Dollar. Our foreign policy is childlike in its deployment. Obama and Clinton act as if goodness and friendliness beget goodness and friendship; they behave as if our national interest would be served if only we listened, apologized, and contritely requested.

The Rubicon is before us. Will the Obama functionaries achieve their objective on healthcare? Will Cap & Trade pass the Senate? If the socialists cross the Rubicon, Rome will not recover; civil unrest will define congressional debate. Conservatives, moderates, and libertarians will not simply sit on their hands.