SEEKING ANOTHER GEORGE WASHINGTON

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is an instinctive veracity that defines and distinctly identifies a leader. A leader, in the interest of attaining sustainable consensus, utilizes the persuasive qualities of prudence; a leader diligently administers the doctrine of good sense principles; a leader applies an assertive enunciation of deductive analysis; a leader so to articulate the solution, is forthright in discernment.

Where there is no leader(s) to rise above the chaos, to stand, separate, and distinguishable, as in the case of the current congress, followers tend to dilly-tally; they, as if a leave that falls from a branch, oscillate until the stronger wind vectors the descend. Followers devoid of a leader believe in short-cuts. If challenged to pronounce their bearings, they willfully concede to the effectual of the prevailing opinion. They have a tendency to huddle while espousing, with timidity, some populist fancy believing that if they just bandy words about, style and grace will suffice. Well, the contrivances of the leaderless are imaginatively multi-faceted. But for sure without a leader in congress good sense is eroded and displaced by fickleness, the governing process becomes an amoral corruptive normative; eventually, the constancy of legislative compromise deletes the meaningfulness of principles, precedence substitute’s the need for decision making, and bureaucracy impairs innovation.

Today the governing from Washington is renowned for the dilution of individual responsibility. The elected defer their individual responsibilities within the opaque decision-making enigma of governing by committee. The imaginative attorney, the harbinger-economist, and the deflector qualities of a rhetorically enhanced politician all add additional buffers so that an individual politician rarely needs to accept personal responsibility. Maybe history has been so distorted by the victor or pitifully dramatized by the loser, that even the idea of leadership is now nothing but a faint memory. Certainly, many of our politicians, in all levels and sorts have forgotten that the highest priority of public service is to serve the public good. Not to raise capital for the next campaign, create personal wealth-prestige, faithfully serve their political party, and have popular celebrities as friends.

In order to be declared a leader one requires followers; surely, not the most profound of deductions. In the early days, leaders were not difficult to measure. In other words, leaders were in front. The follower’s sensed the up close and personal sighting, hearing, intuitional and intuitive smell of a leader’s prudent tenacity. The leader’s identity was behavior-apparent; courage palpable.

In today’s world a political leader is distanced in the physical being, although technology has its (contrasting to the days of old) enhancements, the apparatus of government and the operating of governing are ambiguous, aloof, and disconcerting. The leader is no longer in front. There is no obligatory to demonstrate independence, sovereignty, and spontaneity. The pseudo-leader(s) of today are required to raise funds so to attain or retain office, look like GQ models, and speak with stylistic elocution.

Nevertheless, in the days of old as with the present, genuine leadership is recognized by one intrinsic absolute: A leader’s judgment must effectuate a positive consequence. This result, this requirement, this one distinctive-discernible-obligatory, this steadfast definitive must-do of a leader is success, achievement, and or victory.

Despite conduct and mannerisms seemingly to the contrary, Americans, traditionally are a result oriented society. Granted, in America, an increasingly heterogeneous nation but with deep and vibrate homogeneous instincts exceptions are a constant. Nevertheless in the majority respectful of nuances and subtleties that are commingled with intermediate causative expressions of anxious withdrawal, Americans will not tolerate failure. Nor will its citizens accept the sophist blend of speciousness and deception. There is no substitute for success. Withstanding the efforts of liberal progressive ideals and the nanny state influences on this country’s laws and culture America is not a: Pathetic, victimized, and aggrieved culture.

The conservative movement needs and requires a stalwart congressional brand of leadership, one that leads from the front. America necessitates a leadership of dynamic vision, leader(s) with the wherewithal to stand confident and sovereign; possessing a willful personality coupled with an inner sense of purposefulness, leadership that persuades others, leadership that establishes a political consensus of common rationale. Leadership that can defeat President Obama…

ARE WE AMERICANS SUBJECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT?

Authored by William Robert Barber

“Government is the problem,” recalling the quintessential conservative Ronald Regan’s famous line when advocating the righteousness of limited government. But as with President Jefferson, Reagan once elected went on to gainsay his own statement by enlarging and enhancing the power of the federal government. Today however it is not just political leadership crowing the cock-a-doodle-doo of populous sentiments. Today, a plurality of Americans, even those of conservative persuasion, view government as more than just a necessary utility, but a symbiotic dependency effectuating a guarantee for everyday essentials. For these citizens government is the reason, the cause, and the solution.

Subtly spread over a number of generations, the societal ideal that government can resolve the problem has taken firm root in the American psyche. Though this belief is opaque in contextual clarification, short on evidence, and often nebulous in form, the trust in government’s omnipotence has been ubiquitously disseminated and for the most part positively received. In an almost devilish sort of enchantment the idea that government knows best has captured the mind-sets of many citizens. Compellingly, a significant portion of citizens, from wide and varied demographics, to actually openly accept that government is or should be directly responsible for their liveliness.

Proportionate to this belief that government is the end-all solution to one’s life is the emergent cultural degeneration of American societal principles. Values such as self-reliance, work ethic, self-discipline and the acceptance of personal responsibility for ones actions are now, and increasingly so, the exception rather than the norm. The most outstanding results of this degeneration of once distinctly American societal principles are the attitudes, collective victimization complex, and the pervasive amongst the younger persons, a “you owe me” mentality.

The reasoning of such acceptance on or dependency for a government solution for what historically was considered common societal or individual aliments was the contrivance of liberal progressives; progressivism is an affiliate that flies under the flag of socialism. It was the post-WWII babies that grew up in the USA orb of plenty. It was this generation fueled by high-tech inventions that injected the concept of instant satisfaction. Inclusive was the benefit of instant communications seamlessly linked into a media industry that intensified not just the distribution of news but formed (for those too lazy to think) at-the-ready opinions of what is news-worthy, as well as, its meaningfulness. These children of WWII veterans were taught by the brethren of father FDR; they were taught that it was FDR and his progressive agenda that retrieved the nation from the despair of the “great depression,” and defeated the fascist in Germany and Japan. They were taught to believe in government. Interestingly, they were also schooled that Republicans were rich and Democrats worked in the interest of the poor and the middle class.

Their children those born in the 70’s and 80’s were led to believe that America is a nation of wrongdoers, often imperialistic in foreign policy, and that America had a long history of violently acting out its warmongering inclinations.

The latitude and longitude of government authority and its resulting imposition upon the populous has abated individual liberty and freedom; nevertheless, even when acting counter to the words if not the spirit of the constitution, government ignores and disregards lawfulness in favor of its power. The populous seem cheerfully willing to trade individual liberty and freedom for even the pretense of governmental guarantees. Disconnected notions such as blindly trusting government’s competency in lawmaking (considering the lawmakers rarely even read the bills presented) while idly permitting the ballooning of government pension obligations and blindly allowing the creation of an entrenched public service union bureaucracy to run rough shod over prudence, when such behavior is predominate it is likely that government has meandered over the abyss. When courts consider governing under the concept that the constitution is susceptible and wholly pliable to the whims of man or societal discretion, and when the governed believe government is the only true arbitrator of the public good. Our republic has, at that point, been transformed into an autocracy of progressive-elitist; a form of governing that Plato and Marcus Arilleus would consider advisable.

Quantitatively and disturbingly, (for me) government is a cell dividing multiplier. Government is a liberty and freedom eating monster. The idea of an ever expanding all-powerful government is allied with many elected representatives who believe governance is best when its grasps include every aspect of one’s liveliness. They also consider such governmental ingress an eventual constitutional right; i.e. sixteenth amendment.

The resilient once proudly existential traditional American has evolved into an American who increasingly relies on every level of governments as their raison d’être. A significant percentage of Americans are willingly, at least ostensibly, “in the land of the free and home of the brave,” to trade their individual liberty and freedom, for the sake of certain guarantees.

Well, we have federal guarantees for entitlements, social security, even public employee pension funds, including all of the military health, welfare, and retirement promises to pay. How has the government preformed on these guarantees? I wonder how those within the ranks of those who voted for and will continue to vote for liberal progressives feel about those guarantees.

Are we Americans now subjects of the government? Yes, increasingly so. I see and hear news stories wherein the protagonist notes that he or she is a college graduate, then the question: Where are the jobs? As if it is the direct responsibility of the elected or some government agency to secure a job for that college graduate.

I think Reagan had it right…we Americans had better get our act together and retrograde back to our ancestral traditions as such regress applies to a principled life wherein blaming, lamenting, and figuring how to take from the more to give to the less is discarded as un-American. Withstanding the question more government is hardly ever the answer and often enough never the solution.

OBAMA! GOVERNING OR CAMPAIGNING?

Authored by William Robert Barber

Have we Americans become so disconnected from the plain, simple, and obvious, the logical and deductive, that we can be influenced into believing that President Obama’s $447 billion jobs-stimulus bill is genuinely a presidential effort to promote job growth? Or is it that the Obama administration’s focus is on his reelection and the jobs bill is a tactical ruse, a means to a political end? Is it possible that this president, the superb elocutionist, after the results of his personally guided and endorsed legislative actions are measured; wherein the meaningfulness of such a measurement indicates anemic economic growth and high unemployment… Is this president going to win over the American people with his rhetorical sleight-of-hand? The president’s recent words, policies, and self-touting performances, inclusively mimicked by his progressive ducklings, are undeniably the dealings of a man and office striving for reelection. This looks and sounds like a man who conceitedly believes everything his vice-president and publicist convey.

The opening scene on the Obama campaign for reelection melodrama is a picture of all cheering his carte du jour of scurrilous slander, lies, deceitful exaggerations, and other such banal accusations. He is always choreographed standing with and encircled by the usual suspects that composite the Obama entourage: Public union bosses, their employees, progressive-ideologically inclined benefactors, civil servant bureaucrats, and empathic elected officials of the liberal progressive Democratic persuasion.

The president is professionally staged to be viewed by the populous as a leader wholesomely propagating the righteousness of his cause. He induces a call-to-arms (the repetitive Obama rant) attacking Republicans, specifically by name, to “straighten-up and fly-right,” and pass my jobs bill.

This is the very same ‘job bill’ defeated in the Senate by members of his own party.

Herein is the conundrum for Obama and his liberal progressives: Socialism whether European, Cuban, N. Korean, Venezuelan, or the current American style does not work. Aside from a nation fully committed to a war of survival, a nation therefore, willingly ceding constitutional guarantees for the perceived safety of martial law, the idea that the wise and the expert can accurately central plan the workings of a diverse domestic economy is a fantasy; a Wizard of Oz scenario that has been played out many times to the same failed result. The concept that the taxpayer funding of government largeness will inspire, catalysis, spawn, and electrify a substantial growth of private enterprise is absurd. Indeed funding government such as the Bush stimulus, TARP, or the Obama stimulus, an act ostensibly designed to stimulate the private economy, resulted instead, in supporting unions, sustaining the excessive cost of governing, aided and assisted in the corrupting of original intent, encouraged wastefulness, and enabled the status quo.

Not only is President Obama arrogantly disingenuous when promoting his jobs bill; he is in unison, ignorantly dismissing the palpable: The social and entitlement justice that complements the Obama ideal of how to engineer the American economy is not only impossible to profitably put into practice, the norms required for implementation is directly contrary to the required fiscal, cultural, and statutory environment to maintain a robust American style capitalistic system.

Prompted by the three branches of government, the feds, by means legal and extralegal, are operating beyond and outside of well-defined constitutional limits, the very premeditated concerns of the Founders have come into being, the pillars that established the legal basis of a nation of laws not of men is now, once again, in jeopardy. Liberal progressives manipulate, trounce, envelope, and ignore the meaningfulness of the words and spirit of the U.S. Constitution; regretfully, such contrivances are not limited to the Democratic Party, nevertheless, President Obama and his confederates have exponentially exemplified the discernible meaning of a liberal-progressive social justice conscious entitlement enriching government.

It is time get these buggers out of office…

BEWARE OF THE FEDS – THEY ARE ARMED AND DANGEROUS!

Authored by William Robert Barber

Noting the maxim (of my originate) that wisdom can only be measured in arrears, history has validated that those Americans that congregated in Philadelphia for the purpose of forming a more perfect union were very wise. They were not simply wise men for their time but wise men since their time as well as into the technologically enriched present.

Their legacy for wisdom is so dominate that the mainstream political parties of the present era each insist that the Founders’ ideals of liberty and freedom are their very own raison d’être. Interestingly, each party considers the Constitution of 1789 the very basis for their exceedingly diverse ideologically enhanced political manifestations.

Although it is also understood that there has been, is now, and more than likely will always be impediments, constitutional usurpers, disfigurements, and exceptions that work, for reasons purposeful, as well as unintended to diminish, abate, or subtract all together the Founders’ original ideals.

Regardless, the legacy of those Founders is so profound that the conceptual given amongst most Americans is that our government functions as a democratic-republic. Americans believe this conceptual given even if there is evidence to the contrary. The myth of America being the “land of the free and home of the brave” is so overwhelming that when the republic is seriously challenged, as for instance by the Obama administration’s most recent corruptive embarrassments, or when the meaningfulness of individual liberty and freedom are abated by statute, the populous prompted by a disengaged media, turns their attention to other less threatening concerns such as the corrupting influence of special interest — or whether a particular poll favors or disfavors some sort of popular ideal.

Humankind’s propensity for dysfunctional behavior is witnessed daily; history has documented such identical behavior for thousands of years. Either by purposeful design or by the naivety that prompts unintended consequences, people, possibly encouraged by a cause delusional and manufactured, or by some unrequited perception seeking restitution, will behave badly, even at the price of their detriment.

It is people that make up the pieces and parts that create, establish, and manage government. But then in my view, people have the right to self-destruct, it is equally understood that people will violate the law. But the government, although made up of people, must rise above the commonness of human failings, of personal regard; government must service the ideal that this country is a land of law not of man.

Our Founders understood the meaningfulness of such issues and concerns; therefore, in the interest of individual liberty and freedom, they founded a constitutional government. The Founders created a government of limited means, a government of checks and balances, a divided government wherein State sovereignty was a functioning part of keeping the central government in a place of restriction and constraint.

Well, less a few remaining vestiges, there is no limit to the power of the federal government. If the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare constitutional the populous can no longer pretend that there are any limits to the authority of the federal government.

In today’s news we have the Attorney General circumventing the truth before the House of Representatives, we have cause to believe that the Department of Energy, in cahoots with the Executive, breached the covenants of a contractual agreement so to service an ideological affiliation that should have been distanced by more than just protocol. Indeed, prudence suggests that when private enterprise is funded with taxpayer monies, politically motivated encouragement should have been deemed wholly inappropriate at inception.

The bequeath of a republic by the Founders to the people of the United States was and is a solid beginning; however, this history-making beginning cannot stand alone. The Constitution of this nation will always be under the siege of interpretation and implementation. The by-word for citizens when surveying and monitoring the workings of government is askance.

Remember, it was — until President Obama — the most liberal of progressives, Franklin Delano Roosevelt that by executive order locked up Americans of Japanese descent for the duration of WWII; he confiscated all their real property, denied them the right to vote, but not to die, fighting for the very nation that violated their rights as American citizens. Beware of governments, their power and prestige… all governments are lethal and they will bite…

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONCEPT OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT?

Authored by William Robert Barber

Contrary to popular and media insistence, neither government nor its leadership creates private sector employment. The why-fore of this readily believable stratagem that government can mandate or the sanguinely sage could legislate (private sector employment) is to believe a Navajo rain dance will bring about a deluge.

In the first cause, how in the world did the federal government position itself to suppose that it could create private sector employment? Well, to the detriment of a capitalistic economy, the steady, ever determined encroachment of central government power over what was once the sacrosanct concept of limited government is a great part of the answer. The federal government has taken on as principles of its own the liberal progressive manifesto that government is obligated to take from the mainstream of the self creating and financially sufficient worker bees and give these proceeds to the “needy.” In the process of ceding to those progressive principles government expansiveness has grown gargantuan in scope and substance. Correspondingly, taxes and fees of all descriptive have risen, divided, and multiplied; and so far there is no real end in sight to the federal government’s policy of ever-increasing taxation.

The American government of 1789 unambiguously divided power within its charter; it enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 the endowed authority of the central government. Withstanding, this definitive affirmation (of limited powers) when measured against the day-to-day utilization of federal governing over the last hundred years one must ask, “Does the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers had envisioned still endure?”

Respectful of constitutional tradition and the cultural heritage of dynamic-individualism, there are those — particularly the fiscal, social, and politically disposed liberal progressive populace — that whole-heartedly believe that the States and the individual cannot be trusted with the right of sovereign respect. Instead it is the central government that is rightfully positioned to encapsulate the disposition of the judicious and trustful arbitrator. Therefore, in the interest of propagating, such fancifulness progressives have created the concept of a living, breathing, and relatively flexible interpretation of the Constitution. Within the context of that interpretive, a constitutional dictum such as the ‘Commerce Clause’ is exampled for expansive interpretation and engineered to fit into what progressives would call the modern era.

The justification for such redrafting of the Framers’ original is also prompted by some great malady, a crisis of stupendous magnitude, or the contrivance thereof. Usually the basis for alternating common practice in form or by statutory means is the discovery of some grave social or fiscal unfairness. The typical unfairness is always populous in style and scant in substance. Nevertheless, the unfairness is one that should have been attended to long ago. As the story goes, the nearly evil, opaquely defined, purposefully intended special interest, probably aligned with the wealthy, are actively working against the common welfare of the community so to enrich themselves or their baneful corporations.

Herein steps Obama the populist armed with promises of “change we can believe in.” Obama defines his political Krieg as between his acolytes, the moral positive, represented as the never politically motivated good-guys always working in the best interest of the common good contested against those of the immoral negative, representing the vilest and base of human instincts. The president has described these counter-to-Obama forces as the greedy and wealthy, oil and financial corporations, Republicans, and certainly, those far right radical Tea Party members.

All the documented evidence that government has some intrinsic sense of or for good judgment, business acumen, or even the sanity of consistent judiciousness points to the contrary. George the III imposed the Mercantile System, Napoleon the Blocus Continental, and of course this country’s trade tariffs, attempts at price controls, and the dogged determination of some presidential administrations and congresses to pervert the natural order of the capitalistic marketplace with protectionist embargos. All of these ‘government inspired schemes failed.

Recently, the Obama administration’s efforts to pick winners within the marketplace cost taxpayers at the very least multi-millions. Excessive taxation, burdensome regulation, and spending taxpayer monies with such blatant disdain is not an economic stimulus it is silly, disregarding of the facts, and seriously detrimental to the economic welfare of this nation.

I do wish I could simply blame the Democrats but the blame extends deep into the Republican ranks as well. I just do not understand this persistent inclination by those in power to always error on the side of big government.

THE OBAMA BELIEVABILITY CRISIS

Authored by William R. Barber

President Obama’s most recent rendition or brand of progressive socialism intended for injection into the American system of governess is not gaining popularity amongst the electorate. Specifically, he needs to convince the so called “swayable ideologically pliable independents” to accept this half-a-stimulus as the solution to this country’s economic malaise. In order to gain such acceptance he will need to enhance his present economic jobs policy with Republican principles. But he just cannot force his left hand to grasp that notion into affirmation.

I believe Obama is in the throes of a self-made dilemma; no matter which direction he turns the effect will have the same result.

Nevertheless and respectful of his failures as president, in relationship to the 2012 elections, the Republicans must get through the primary without drawing more blood from the faithful. Accusations delivered by fellow conservatives that bring into play social or religious issues, only arsenals, bullets, and grenades to the Obama camp; if such collateral to the central issues of tax reform, national GDP growth, cutting the deficit, and substantially reducing government spending does not take center stage the Republican candidate that will NOT decisively trounce Obama.

There is a strong conservative principled wind building up in this nation state; the young, the old, the naïve, and the hip, all are sobering up. All are recognizing this nation’s fiscal fix as a huge issue, a monstrous problem that must be firmly addressed. Everyone but the dire hearted progressives believe that government action is not the answer when the question is how to stimulate jobs and provide prudent fiscal responsibility. Indeed, Ronald Regan’s “government is the problem” has resonated anew as a validated political truth.

The Democrats’ policy mantras since FDR have always been the repetitive: tax and spend, overwhelm private enterprise with administrative-bureaucratic nonsense, regulate-regulate, at every opportunity scoff the very people that are financially successful, and scurrilously attack private corporations for making too much money as if such was a moral crime.

Lenin would be very pleased to hear the president’s bombastic endorsement and day-to-day critic of America’s obvious and prevalent unfairness. In the mind of the liberal progressive, Obama being the hero-protagonist, America has by purposeful neglect (turning a blind eye) and a willful tax-policy of enriching the rich enacted a tiered inequitable playing field that results in the enabling of social injustice. The Obama domestic doctrine is founded on class warfare and in the name of enabling fairness and social justice he wages this war with weapons of income redistribution schemes and in effect pro-union affirmative action.

Interestingly, according to Obama it is not the American people that are to blame for all of these detriments to society; factually, Obama suggests, even the Republican Party is only in part responsible. The blame for America’s societal disregard is squared directly on the Tea Party activists. Progressives want to believe that these Tea Party provocateurs of social injustice have signed a secret alliance with the far-right and neo-fascists ideologues. The mission of this hypothetical alliance is to rid the country of all welfare programs, social security, Medicare, government designed fiscal safety nets, and unions. The motivation of this alliance is racist in scope, Christian evangelistic exclusive, and xenophobic in character.

Well, I left out some blame set aside for former President Bush; of course Obama does realize that without Bush and the Arizona Senator there would be no Obama presidency.

I wonder how Obama’s and Biden’s investment in green energy is doing???

THIS BLAME STUFF IS A WASTE… LET’S GO FISHING!

Authored by William Robert Barber

I have been, for the last week, on business in Ireland. Today after frisking about with the Irish people, gazing and stomping on their generously forested land of gently rolling green country-side, driving through narrow village streets dotted along the hill and dale; enjoying many a stimulating discussion intertwined with good food and ale. I am heading home.

Interestingly, the economic concerns of Ireland and indeed all of Euro-land, are about the same as they are in America. Everyone I met and every publication I scanned emphasized the painfully high unemployment, the lack of bank-funding, dismal economic growth, and the sad, bitter effects of the almost complete devastation of real-estate value.

Entertainingly, the blame-story is similar to what we Americans channel. When the marketplace puts money or even the illusion of putting money in peoples’ pocket, everyone is unquestioning and quite pleased. However, when money has stopped flowing in and in fact starts to flow out or not flow at all, well, fault is seeking a dance partner. The people negatively affected point the finger at any and all except their own blindly excessive spending indulgences. The Irish – just like us Americans – readily exclude their most recent willy-nilly mindless behavioral addiction to a belief and practice in nonrecourse consumption.

When specifying the present American financial and real estate downturn I suggest that one should review the fuel that created the economic boom-cheap money and debt. The collateral was a commodity known as real estate and equity market trades and holdings. When private enterprise is managing its own risk and the speculator-public accepts their own risk, individually, the winners and losers suffer or gain. But when government and their cohorts public-private unions gets in the middle to install a “fair playing field,” to “protect the worker or the investor,” or enact by law a third-party ideal of fairness, the taxpayer pays excessively for the governing service.

There is an ancient adage that runs parallel to the biblical saying, “God helps those that help themselves,” inclusively, one cannot by edit nullify stupid or criminal behavior nor can government by legislation bind or mandate the practice of good sense and morality.

Of course these well-known adages do not stop the elected from their task of constant governmental interference. This is best evidenced by the government’s insistence on retaining an ambiguous federal tax code, enacting the excessively expensive regulatory dud Sarbanes-Oxley, the retention of duplicating departments and agencies, the persistence of continuing federal policies that bully risk-takers and reward losers. The systematically applied coercive pushing and pulling by several Congresses since the Eisenhower administration has driven private enterprise straight to attorneys, litigation, and bureaucratic discombobulating.

The liberal progressives in line with congress’ Barney Frank have for years forced private banks in the direction of mal-ginned imprudent lending practices. For the elected, evidence to the contrary of their ideal, be damned; the policy of government in their eye’s is as a matter of policy, to taxpayer finance a seemingly never-ending series of perverse societal contrivances that have, in the present, after decades of persistence, finally, impaired the nation.

When one combines such governmental action with a popular consumption frenzy stirred and prompted at every opportunity by a political leadership motivated solely to attain or maintain public office; the tangibles of sensible and pragmatic are pushed into the delete file in favor of the intangible and deceptive. These rascals, the elected Noblesse oblige, and their allies such as public employee unions, the New York Times, National Broadcasting Company, all liberal progressives, and labor lobbyist in general, are consistently remissive of applying prudent real-world principles to the issues and concerns of governing the peoples’ money. Either consciously purposeful, or permissively naïve, political leaders have, for many years, mislead the voting public as to the nation’s economic disposition. Experience has documented, the elected class will lie, cheat, and steal to and from their constituencies.

When reviewing the governing of particularly democratic-republics one is inclined to believe in the governing tenants of righteousness, particularly in these countries the predominately sane champions the irrational. Corruptive behavior in and by government is assumed to be spotty at best. After all, one is led to believe that in democratic-republics reason dominates the unreasonable, but low and behold, instead we find the non-sensible overwhelming good sense.

Upon surveying the historically documented factual pieces and parts that lead to the 2008 recession one could conclude that it was if the world of the otherwise prudent and rational was managed from the Emerald City by the hedge fund wonk, The Wizard-of-Oz.

Bloated property assessment permitted the government to tax and squanders more of the people’s money; equity pricing egregiously mismatch derivative to market value, and the wholesale of government policies explicitly designed to give away other people’s money. Could there have been another outcome? If governments’ print money, if fiat currency is forced into acceptance, if tax revenue lags behind governmental distribution of that revenue how could there actually be a functioning economy? No one with enough political juice considered the cost verses the benefit; everyone was chasing the butterflies, enjoying the rainbows, and receiving their pot of gold.

Captivatingly, the financially affected, withstanding the history of government stupidity, the government’s culpability in a total lack of sensible, rational, prudent, and reasonable governess, these persons, still contemplate government as the quick and easy solution. I am particularly astounded by the incredulous insistence of not just the financially affected populous but institutional leaders from bankers to insurance executives, economist, and broker-dealers they all create a novel wherein they write-in, admittedly, in degrees of measurable variance, governmental agencies and departments as the solution-protagonist.

The solution to our economic malaise is simple. Learn to find the bait, fancy the bait onto the hook, choose a line and pole; discover a place where fish are to be found, throw the baited line into the water, catch the fish, prepare the fish, cook the fish and eat it. Now all of this is to be done without paying a licensing fee, and entrance fee, a poundage tax, governmentally assisted learning, or some federal agency telling you how to eat the fish.

In other words, government shut up, do less, and stay out of my business…

ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH

Authored by William Robert Barber

Whenever opposing personalities representing differing ideologies or political party affiliations confront each other, particularly when presented in front of broadcast media, the question asked (by the host) is almost never answered. Instead of a direct answer to a direct query, the answerer prefers an oral rendering that may or may not have some semblance to the subject of the question. If the representations of differing political perspectives are physically or virtually present, invariably they evolve into speaking over each other and the listener is inhibited from hearing neither. These ideologically enhanced representatives, elected, appointed, or staffed, behave as if programmed and robotically manipulated by some self-righteous guru who by means inexplicit has grasps firmly on to the ideal-political truth of the matter.

Respective of attempts to dislodge these acolytes of ideological believers they steadfastly stay committed to the predetermined established line. They never permit facts to discourage them from their programmed commitment to the script. Interestingly, this act is repeated over and again; if there is an exception, it is only apparent when the host, and the guest has both drank the same cool aide. Then each buttresses the others perspective by complimenting on how smart they are and how dumb the opposition is.

My assumption is that ‘the handlers’ believe that freethinking and impromptu responses are way too dangerous an endeavor. Which leads one to deduce and conclude that the ‘bosses’ of the politically sensitive text cannot trust the personal thoughts of the question-responder; therefore, deception is the operational objective of ideologues in general and political parties in specific.

I am not really sure if this policy of purposefully misleading the voting public is effectual; nevertheless, obviously ‘the handlers’ do believe that this tactic of never answering a direct question with a direct answer is effective.

Possibly all public officials should swear an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth prior to making any public statement. If caught in a lie then the charge, as if responding to a question from the FBI, would be (an indictable) perjury. If such a benchmark was extended to political advertisement/publicity imagine how much money the networks would lose during an election cycle.

Sadly, the public cannot open-handedly trust politicians, the appointed, or the staffed; but then why should we presume that we ever could? It is a healthy voting public that looks upon its governing authorities with askance. The same attitude of skepticism even cynicism should prevail upon politically driven data, research, statistics, associations, and cleverly designed opinion surveys. It is not that political truths do not exist; it is that they do NOT exist in any pure form. Politically-unadulterated form is as much a myth as Obama’s “change we can believe in.”

For instance the newest politically inspired declaration by the Democrats are that the Republicans favor ideology over country. The implication is that Republicans are less patriotic than Democrats and it therefore follows that Democrats value patriotism over political ideology or party. Amazingly, this is repeated from one senior Democratic representative to the public as truthful. Does anyone believe that Republicans are less patriotic then Democrats? This sort of distorted nonsense is 4th grade dialogue acted out near the swing sets during recess.

Just as disconcerting is the questions that some of these network host asks. They are more interested in got-you questions than substantive. I wish the questioners would pre-declare their particular political affiliations and prejudice prior to the interview so that the audience could understand the motivational inclination prior to the Q & period.

I suppose I am asking way too much… after all, having direct questions answered directly is counter-traditional to America’s political-media legacy. Seemingly the goal is to usurp common sensibility by treating the voters as if sheep, cattle, or fish in a fresh water aquarium wherein the fish hobbyist makes sure that the temperature is balanced in line with compulsory additives and feeding.

It would be terrific if a TV program required all political guest to speak only the truth as they believe it to be and then instantaneously have a fact check meter that spurts out evidence that endorses or disproves the politicians’ statements. Well, fat chance of that happening, okay, I agree we need to deal with the reality of the possible not the supernatural; the answer in the immediacy is to scoot that Obama team out of office in 2012.

ARGUMENTATIVE GOVERNMENT BY DESIGN

Authored by William Robert Barber

Obviously, the goal of the fathers (of this republic) was to design a governing body founded on the principle that competing political elements expressed in variant policies, ideologies, and personalities, (often articulated by intense bickering) could find a forum for unfettered discourse. In the interest of achieving such a goal they created a republic that allowed and reflected, within the confines of the constitution, the means and inspiration for competing political ideals.

The principle of stimulating competing ideas is the essence of freedom and individual liberty. The governing of the republic was inextricably tethered to democratic values and such are wholly dependent on the right of discourse. The laws of this republic armed the people directly, and through their elected representatives, indirectly, in the pursuit of consensus with the efficacy of persuasion. In other words, the effectiveness of citizenry persuasion is the merit that prompts consensus; knowing, by design, that without consensus persuasion has no practical application. So to insure tolerance for and of another’s perspective the founders took into account a lawful process that permits multiple “bites at the apple” whereby failing to harness the required consensus is not necessarily fatal.

This lawful process was integrated within the constitution wherein the binding arbitrator is regular elections. In addition to elections and as a stand-by supplement to abate populous agitation there are petitions, referendums, and the specific right to recall an elected official. Matter of factually; there is a real, within the grasps, reasonable alternative for redress from the losing side of a debate for a particular consensus. Elections vent frustration, discombobulate the empowered, and empower the electorate… well, that’s the intent.

There are many differences of approach between this nation’s political parties; but the one commonality that both political parties have promoted is the expansion of the federal government. Proportional; some would evidence as disproportional to governmental expansion, is the coercive means that government has at its disposal to willfully impose it power upon the people. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice are only two examples of very intimidating governmental agencies. Since the administration of John Adams the executive branch has by means within the constitution and by means contrary to the constitution the underlying result as always been the unyielding growth of the federal government. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 were passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress to weaken the Democratic-Republican Party by restricting speech. No citizen could express in any form a scurrilous accusation against the president or congressional members; interestingly, the Vice President (Thomas Jefferson of the opposing party) was fair game. By 1802 the act was repealed or allowed to expire at term. The point being that politician(s) are not to be trusted with power; they will betray the meaningfulness of the constitution is it suits their perception of need.

For years the conduct of government was to spend more than it receives in revenue. Only through other than GAPP accounting did the Clinton administration demonstrate a surplus.

So now this run-away-with-the-people’s-cash government has run out of allotted funds. Naturally, this has happened over and over before. Indeed, each time the elected would use the forum to spat out accusatory accusations at the party in power for increasing the national debt. This phony nonsensical disingenuous plays well in the capital; that is until spending extended over 14 Trillion. Now the political parties are requiring an additional 2 trillion; that served up some attention.

The concept of competing ideas has run into a brick wall; the idea of compromise has evolved into political steadfastness. The Democrats want to find the money to keep their entitlements alive by increasing taxes; the Republicans say the problem is not one of taxing to little but spending too much. The progressives want a European style governing entity while the conservative want limited government. Legislatively there is a very real impasse. This impasse can only be settled by the 2012 election until then the party that controls one-third of government must negotiate with the party that controls two-thirds of government. Both parties have worked very hard to put this nation’s finance in its current placement; hopefully, the conservatives will get as much as possible in spending cuts with no increase in taxes. The progressives believe that fighting entitlement reform and enabling class warfare will help them in the next election… indeed, it just might.

PRESUMPTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is this Marine Corps saying, “Presumptions and assumptions gets you killed in combat.” The accurate transference to civilian life of this saying is attained by merely substituting the action word “killed” with expressions such as: A waste of time and money, a distortion of original intent, the replacement of the tenets honesty and truthfulness with immoral or amoral.

Our United States of America has over the last century (or more) developed and in the main established a government whose process of operational scope is not of the people, by the people, nor for the people; indeed, there is evidence that the 1789 constitutional intent has perished from reality. We the people can no longer presume or assume that our representative republic is in fact representative, that our federal system of power sharing between the government of central and state is intact, or that our republic functions within the lawfulness of the constitution.

We citizens have been bewitched into what cognitive scientists have described as “existence bias;” which is the persistent suggestion that the status quo is so prevalent in thought acceptance that its continuance cannot be denied. Interestingly, while believing in the power of incumbent thought citizens act on the razor’s edge of disingenuousness. They will entertain almost any antithesis of the status quo. Even when details are omitted…a declaration by any politician of an alternative to the prevailing has popular appeal.

A perfect example is the election of President Obama. Obama’s message was viciously anti-Bush. With complicit aid of the national media and the entire Democratic leadership President Bush was bludgeoned by personal attacks. Obama’s most pronounced antagonisms were for Bush’s foreign and domestic policies. Now after holding office for more than two years Obama has mimicked more of Bush’s policies than not. We now know that President Obama is evermore the status quo politician. We now understand that his battle cry of “Change we can believe in,” was nothing less than words empty of belief.

Possibly the continuance of the status quo was a more accurate descriptive of Obama’s administration after all, it was Obama who declared the simple answer to an ancient riddle of politics when he noted that if the ingredients stay the same how could we citizens expect a difference result. He pledged different! Well, his actions proved him to be the same; the same as any other politician seeking to achieve and now sustain power.

If that is so how is it that so many Americans still maintain a positive sentiment for his presidency? Often our eyes deny us clarity. We discount the actual with the utility of self-serving contrivance. The same occurs on what we hear or read. We have sentiments that can with some artful prompting discombobulate the meaningfulness of the palpable and evidentiary.

Besides the effective of self-serving contrivances, there are certain words, subjects, and phrases that mindlessly spin the minds of the normally rational and reasonable into a metaphoric array of self-determined illusions. These certainties that prompt one’s mind into the illusionary are disjointed from sensibility but not from effect.

Let me name a few of these certain words, education, fairness, level playing field, and social justice. For example let’s take education. A very powerful stand-alone word that entails passionate conjectures, even some facts, but do bridge to other descriptions such as teachers’ unions, school bonds, subjects taught, parental influence, sin and property taxes. Who in their right mind would be against education? But of course the real question is more of a definition along cost benefit analysis then the generalities of education on a per se basis.

Assumptions and presumptions are dangerous means…illusions of blissfulness and wisdom are not automatically encased behind a pretty face or beautiful words. And without a doubt assumption, and presumption gets one killed in combat.