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…

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???

PROFESSIONAL GUESSERS AND FEARFUL INVESTORS

Authored by William Robert Barber

As the stock markets of the world kinetically vibrate, setting a pace of newly found extremes for sell-off and buy-in, investors surrender to the bafflement of two offers: The first is to accept the blindfold, and the second is to stare-down the oncoming bullet as it races for the spot just above one’s nose.

Speculators of genuine risks are buying gold futures, coin, and billion by following the golden rule for speculation: Prices rise when buyers significantly outperform sellers — of course the opposite rings just as true.

Remember! The purchase of gold does not add capital to a company’s balance sheet; these treasures will not fund research of discovery or invention. An ‘investment’ in gold is a bet founded on the principle of hoarding.

King Midas regularly counted his gold; but he gained no material benefit from the gold until he made a purchase. Obviously, as soon as Midas transacted a purchase, he not only had less gold but the price of gold as a necessity of market dynamics depreciated. When one sells ones — gold which is a requirement in order to attain a product or service — one does so by a conversion to fiat currency. In other words, eventually one is going to sell gold for legal tender; otherwise, there is no benefit to holding on to gold. If I was a holder of gold I would want to be first in line on the selling side because if I am not in the front, the price of gold will be far less valuable to me standing somewhere in the middle of the sellers pack.

Licensed professionals bandy about their theories and conjecture their forecast. All of these suit-and-tie personalities act as if they were/are the bona fide harbingers of repute, each exuding the confidence of an “I knew my horse would win” bettor; of course this is only after the horse race was over.

It is my belief that genius, like wisdom, and luck are results that can only be accurately measured in arrears. No one knows — one only guesses that one knows.

A hypothesis, a tentative explanation of a phenomenon, is a best guess effort to explain what we do not know for sure. I believe all of these professional guessers are sincere hypothesist striving to analyze and present a reasonable rational commentary on an event that quite possibly could be wholly unreasonable and irrational.

The statist that occupy the White House lament that the Stimulus was too small, not big enough because they miscalculated the enormity of the economic Bush debacle. Their premise of finding the economically viable light and the way has not moved one iota from their insistence that Keynesian economics is the answer to the woeful status of present US economic ills.

In keeping with that belief they also believe that the federal government can directly create private sector jobs. Well, the certainty is that the federal government cannot directly create jobs. Other than covertly enhance or overtly embrace governmental bureaucracy, possibly bedfellow, even more openly the unionization of America, government involvement in private business can only increase the cost of doing business, stymie productivity, and – when coupled with Obama’s resolve on super-regulating enterprise – government can only belay growth.

I have no idea why we need to relearn the simple and palpable over and over again. Capitalism is the most potent of economic methodologies/systems. Currently, the federal government is managed by progressive persons who depend on an ever-increasing manifest for governmental largeness; they depend on the viability of increase taxation as a matter of policy. Factually, liberal progressives could not sustain their raison d’être, their howl in the light of a full moon if government is limited in operational scope. Progressives require a big fat bureaucratically enriched government in order to inhale their brand of oxygen.

This American economy will overcome the Keynesian policy of where-for-naught as it intersects with the Obama administration’s design of social justice and class warfare; it will rise above the ills of the EU malaise, it will, with the aid and assist of the Supreme Court, withstand the costly breach of good sense by rescinding ObamaCare. All is to be rightfully settled in the election of 2012.

I WILL TAX THE RICH VOTE FOR ME

Authored by William Robert Barber

So, according to Obama, if we increase the tax to those that earn $250,000 or more a year the deficit will notably abate. Of course Obama is not explicit in this presumption he only implies that taxing the rich “a little more” will notably abate the deficit. On-its-merits this Obama tax-a-little-more proposal is contentious and the conservatives do have a viable alternative. Just as one looks both ways when crossing the street, in the interest of prudence, contemplation is reasonable. Certainly, to endorse such a proposition, simply on the presumptive scaffold that taxing the rich will notably abate the deficit, requires more methodologically applied scrutiny than Obama’s campaign motivated rhetorical declarations.

Obama acts as if there was no viable counter-argument. Is it that the conservative’s emphasis on excessive government spending is actually on target?

I have noticed that whether the economy is good or bad, federal and state governments, waste taxpayer monies. With purposeful intent (motivated by trying to win office or to stay in office) politicians broaden old entitlements and at every opportunity creates new ones. The elected, mostly, Democratic pay explicit homage to unions; just take a peek at state pension obligations; I do believe that spending is the true basis of our deficit? Or is the Obama tax-the-rich proposal more an appeal to those who pay no federal income taxes to vote the status quo. Possibly this tax the rich scheme is nothing less than an offer to purchase votes in the upcoming 2012 election rather than a genuine proposal to decrease the deficit? Imagine a politician acting to better the odds of winning an election as a reason to act?

But then, one must appreciate that for Obama and his confederates within the progressive league, their real intention has nominal to do with deficit abatement and a great deal to do with servicing their agenda of social-justice. Indeed, once this tax-the-rich plan is implemented and thereafter (years later) analyzed for effectiveness even if the legislation had no effect on the deficit. The progressive ideal of fairness will have triumphed. And most importantly for Obama a progressive ideal has been in-placed.

The marketing of progressive persuasion is purposefully premised on invoking class-struggle onto the talking-points of electoral persuasion; the idea is to tie their political aspirations into an alignment with moral righteousness. After all (the Obama progressives deceptively preach) the poor and disenfranchised have no power; as Obama has pointed out they have no lobbyist to express their frustrations. It is therefore the obligation of Obama and his progressives to represent their interest. Now where have we heard this plea for the poor people before? Lenin comes to mind.

I do find it interesting that political leaders never advocate for the rich and the privileged although all of these leaders are rich and privileged. Inclusive to these pleas for those who have less every political leader throughout the 1900 hundreds up to the present have declared that the poor are poorer and the middle class is economically stymied. Naturally, what follows is the popular declaration that they will rectify this injustice as a matter of policy. This rectifying of injustice has been a politically enriched constant of Republican as well as Democratic leaders for a very long-time. Has no political party or political leader made progress in this endeavor to rectify this supposed clear injustice? Or is this rectifying of mostly economic injustice simply a popular campaign issue?

Obviously, withstanding whether this issue is real or imaginary, the politicians love the issue so much both political parties have used it. Of course Obama and his progressives have a particular infinity for the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Without it they would have no social injustice to rectify. Hmm… that could drastically change their political crusade to emancipate the downtrodden from under the thumb of the rich and powerful.

Over the years I have heard the adage: We always get the government we deserve. I now believe this adage to be a truism. The forces of bonne chance aligned with the failures of President Bush’s administration, Secretary Paulson’s response to the financial crisis, the Bush endorsement to fund the car companies, as well as, their unions. And bingo President Obama was voted into power. The anemically pathetic campaign of the senator from Arizona also made a significant contribution to Obama’s victory.

Well, respective of the serendipitous outcome of the community organizer’s 2008 election, by November of 2011 the voters will truly understand the meaningfulness of what a vote for Obama means. If he wins this time, big government, ObamaCare, and most likely another liberal Supreme Court justice appointment is a definite. Conservatives will lose big time; we just cannot let that happen…

OBAMA’S IDEAL OF CHANGE

Authored by William Robert Barber

The working suppositions of the Obama government are that more regulation is better than less, increasing the taxes of those who have more is not only a requisite to social justice but a moral initiative worthy of any confrontation, increasing the power of the federal government is the willfulness necessary to instill a liberal progressive policy, and that all of the these working suppositions are not only the very thesis of liberal progressivism but essential to the Obama scheme for meaningful change.

In the Obama world of ‘Change One Can Believe In,’ patriotism is a low priority. While Obama’s idea of social-economic fairness is a high priority, a greater, more powerful bureaucracy in partnership with unions is the essential engine that will power the doctrine of social-economic fairness.

The location of power within the United States preceding the progressive era was founded on the idea that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people it affects. Hence the states, counties, and cities played a much larger role in governing. But over time, and particularly since the rule of FDR, power has been ceded to the distant federal source. Now evidence demonstrates that although this transference of power has been going on enthusiastically for many years, this administration has far greater ambition than simply growing the size and scope of the central government. Obama insists on a transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations; he wants European integration wherein the United States would be part of a united Europe.

Let’s look at the evidence: European-style healthcare, welfare, carbon taxes, day care, college education… he even acts as a European espousing a Brussels-like foreign policy, mimicking a European approach to nuclear disarmament, and his reluctance to deploy US troops in a leadership role is a direct reflection of his ideal Euro-America.

Obama and his progressive confederates possess dangerous ideas. Their ideal America would abate growth, increase taxes (not exactly compatible factors), surrender America’s superpower standing, and trade our exceptionalism for the common denominator of being the same. Of course the Europeans might think of us more kindly; we might become more popular, the Russian and Chinese would gladly welcome us into their sphere of influence. I, of course, do not believe America’s role is one of subordination — indeed, the antithesis is true.

I believe that Obama and his acolytes are internationalists who have accepted the concept of a Brussels-led union wherein the ruling doctrine is that the nation-state must transcend individualism, freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the American rule of law in the interest of servicing policies that are inextricably tied to social justice.

All I see in Europe is a burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth, and rising unemployment. This has been the European experience for the last forty years. It is clear to me that American capitalism will win the day… unless the liberal progressives kill the hand that feeds them. And they are trying real hard with fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing, more regulation, and the stubborn insistence on taxing “the rich,” to snap off the very hand that feeds them.

I was inspired to write this blog-topic by Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament…

Authored by William Robert Barber

These fiscal battles being fought from sea to shining sea truly do define the dragon from the paladin; of course, because of differing ideological perspectives, the dragon and the paladin are exchangeable.

From my ideological perspective the dragon is without question the liberals and their progressive agenda. For example, in the interest of serving entrenched special interest, the Obama administration has created multiple fiscal machinations; these variable machinations are so intriguing, so fantastically written and delivered, that one could, depending upon viewpoint, easily contextualize either a melodrama or a comedy.

Though delivered as if nonfiction, these progressives actually live in a robustly ubiquitous fiction. Wherein, despite the federal monstrous deficit, the taxpayers should, out of a sort of noblesse oblige respect for liberalism, finance NPR. They behaviorally suggest that it’s just fine that state public employee union pension obligations are in the trillions. The remedy is obvious: Raise taxes on the wealthy. If this were part of the nation’s progressive taxation policy, more entitlements would be fiscally manageable. Harry Reid, a progressive leader, says unequivocally that social security, respective of evidence to the contrary, is financially sound.

Remember when Barney Frank told us Americans that Fannie and Freddie were just fine — that what conservatives were trying to do was ruin housing for the poor.

The distinct premise these progressives are trying to publically convey is founded on a supposition of the rational and reasonable. Their approach to the formulation of fiscal policy is striking the right balance; that there really is a distinction between spending and investing. They are broadcasting to all that will listen the proposal that no rational and reasoned elected representative of the liberal brand, particularly considering the present state of economic affairs, could possibly, consider simply dallying, dithering, as if they were obsessively eccentric ideologically motivated nincompoops. Oh no, these liberal Democrats are not thinking of 2012; they are not dancing so to eat up time so that this year’s budget will be muted by the arrival of end of the year…

Certainly, the Obama government has a living breathing snapshot of what the collapse of a welfare state looks like; surely, it is aware of California. A state that faces an immediate $26.6 billion dollar shortfall, an estimated half-a-trillion dollar public pension obligatory, and unemployment higher than Michigan. The reality is that California has 12% of the nation’s population and 1/3 of the national welfare cases. Now how in the world did all of the highly educated all-knowing wonks allow this counter-to-deductive-sensibility manifest? Well, here’s how: They borrowed and spent the people’s money as if state taxes and fees were on a guaranteed upward path. Naturally, in keeping with the stupidity of enacting and implementing a policy of wish, hope, and disbelieve in the empirically obvious, they were elected and reelected by promising more to those who have less and less to those who have more.

We ideological counter engagers are fighting for a period; we then retire to our corners, recalculate strategy, tactics, and venture out into the middle of the ring. Compromise has become (as it should be) a nasty possibility that neither engager contemplates as a solution. The Republicans are searching for a superhero to save the day… and the Democrats have their superhero.

UNIONS ARE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS

Authored by William Robert Barber

Because of the behaviorally dysfunctional narrative that contextualizes American politics and the normative nature of human incongruity, legislation in outcome is often contrary to legislative intent. Indeed, often enough legislative effect is assigned the descriptive: “unintentional consequence.” As a consequence of legislators not reading or comprehending the laws considered for passage, the corollary of such daffy legislative actions are laws enacted wholly outside the reasoning or first cause of the original legislative intent.

Within the providence of politic’s influence is the currency of trade. The idea of pursuing one’s ideals or procedure is ancient. The provocateurs of influencing are artful persuaders. Indeed, regardless of one’s political ideology, the action of politics is founded on principles of persuasion wherein the objective is to garner positive consensus.

For example, public employee unions are interested in negotiating their contracting position with a friend of unions; hence, they spend an inordinate amount of their union dues on selecting and supporting Democratic politicians that espouse a liberal progressive belief. Does it really seem sensible for the taxpayers to have a union advocate representing their fiscal interest? The factor of concern for unions, business lobbyists, and consumer necessitates, as well as every other representative of advocacy, is to attain influence in the pursuit of their particular interest.

Machiavelli would be proud of the numerous elected representatives who play out the role of his prince. Liberal progressive governors have led the way in putting their state’s pension and benefit fund in the fiscal position of financial impairment. This came into being because the governors were beholding to union money and physical support.

Predominate in politics is the statutorily compliant corruptive practice of manipulating the process of law making so to gain a political advantage. There are many examples, one of which is the Obama administration’s granting of exceptions to ObamaCare. Another is this dance over the current budget.

Our constitutional originators understood this normative — and founded a written constitutional platform to navigate the bow of state through the dangerous waters of self-interest, corruptive influence, and re- or misinterpretation of original constitutional purpose. Nevertheless, despite the written constitution and regardless of the checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers, the effectual of the judicial branch and mandatory elections held every two and four years, the meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution, has been subject to distortions of original intent.

As the colloquial saying goes, “things happen;” indeed, things did happen and at this very moment things are happening. Wherein, instead of establishing an everlasting democratic-republic, we Americans are governed by an oligarchic governorship that operates in plain sight within the legislative and executive branches of government. Our economy is more socialist than capitalistic; the taxing system implemented by government is designed to redistribute wealth at the discretion of the federal bureaucracy and member states have ceded their historical sovereignty to the omnipotent power of the central authority. None of this enforces individual liberty and freedom; it seems the weight of the federal bureaucracy despite its obvious inefficiency, its monstrous cost to benefit ratio, federal power and bureaucracy have stymied the means and often the will to change.

The recent election did not go far enough; we now know that without a super-majority in both houses and control of the executive branch, the liberal progressive socialist will impede the conservative agenda to the point of ineffectiveness. The 2012 election seems the only real recourse to the course of Obama and his confederates.

WHAT ARE THESE DEMOCRATS DOING?

Authored by William Robert Barber

I really want to pick on these Democratic politicians who just cannot get it into their brain housing group that they are on the losing end of a very material issue.

The issue of material concern consists of two separates that have a symbiotic connection: The first is the excessive cost of governing; the other are the public employee unions and their utility of collective bargaining as such pertains to satisfying the requirements of a balanced budget.

The gross federal & state taxable revenue has recently taken a negative downturn; the result of which has been an unrestricted exposé, a pictorially delivered rendering as to the bona fide cost of governing for all to review. The sequence of such a review is the immediate conjecture that the day-to-day, year-to-year cost of governing exceeds tax and fee income. The audit deduction deduces the fact that union expenditures in the form of salaries, benefits, and pensions are not only unsustainable but illogical. The lawful utility of collective bargaining by unions has handicapped negotiating by local and state governments to the point where unions have actually usurped the meaningfulness of elections. They limited the sensible ability of state/local government to lower operational cost to a nonoperational degree. Unions have had the effect of disenfranchising the duly elected from the implementation of prudent governing willfulness. They have purposefully intervened in the affairs of governing to such an extent, impairment is a discussed recourse.

The camouflaging or concealment of governmental liabilities has been hidden from first sight by politicians of both parties rather efficiently. That is until the Obama administration’s insatiable spending appetite forced a second look. Reality is that it was Obama and his socialist tendencies coupled with his progressive political beliefs that provided the most significant contribution to the conservative cause of limited government. It is not to say that President Bush and his republican majority did not try to throw taxpayer funds into the fire of the outrageous and stupid; but, unlike Obama, Bush failed to incite the conservative base. President Obama did manage to agitate the public; of course, the outrage was prompted by trillions of (investments?) spending dollars into governmental silliness.

The single goal of leadership is to be right; President Obama and his acolytes were wrong on way too many policies. It was Obama’s team that predicated unemployment would not pass the 8% mark as a precondition to passing the stimulus bill.

For decades, federal, state, and county public employee unions have bullied, cajoled, and negatively impacted their (fellow citizen) employers; they have challenged the ‘right to work’ environment and lost the contest. In the election of 2008 they elected Obama and a whole host of liberal progressives; they captured an overwhelming majority in the legislative branch of government. Nevertheless, by 2010 they lost the House of Representatives to the conservatives; they were befuddled and regressed into the explanation that unemployment numbers were simply too high as the reasoning of their shellacking.

Well, unemployment numbers were and are high because their policies do not work. Now they are doubling up on endorsing public employee unions; even Obama traversed into the fray with his concern that public employee unions are being illegitimately assaulted by Governor Walker.

Here is the fact: Democrats are lost in the desert of “once upon a time.” They are searching for the progressive promised land. But not only is Obama not Moses; he is caught between the purgatory of supporting business and limiting the growth of government, a workable policy or advocating a liberal progressive agenda that he knows will not create jobs nor raise taxable revenue. If he wants a political future he must swing to the right… but he just can’t do it.

WHAT EXACTLY IS OUR PROBLEM?

Authored by William Robert Barber

We have an economy larger than China and Japan combined — and we still need to sell debt instruments to foreign entities in order to meet our spending requirements?

Let’s think about this self-imposed conundrum… This nation protects the trading interest, the physical properties, and lives of millions of people who reside within the “providence” of the Free World. We are a very real martial hesitation for any aggressor; in fact, we, along with Canada, England, and Australia are the only true deterrent to any overt military threat whatsoever.

We are the largest consumer nation that has ever existed and withstanding our fiscal issues and unsustainable national deficit, we are still the transactional envy of the world.

If all is as I describe, how did this nation put itself in the position that it finds itself in 2011? How could we have so tangible a resource and yet be so very dependent on foreign nations purchasing our debt? Presently our national debt is 1.6 trillion dollars. Imagine the interest payments! The people of this nation are consuming benefits by borrowing money from foreign sources. We are caught up in this fiasco of counter-intuitive intercourse because we lack the managerial wherewithal or fiscal discipline to reduce our spending while living within the means of our tax revenue.

The grand question is: How in the hell did this happen? Why is it that America lacks the managerial wherewithal and fiscal discipline to straighten out its mess?

Over the last hundred years we have allowed the illogical influence of socialists, progressives, liberals, Epicureans, sophists, academia recluses, and the ideologically naïve into convoluting the very ethos of American governing tradition. The result is a legislative approach that champions a doctrine that government knows best, a presumption wholly void of empirical evidence.

As a nation we have traded leadership for a benign-sort of followship. Wherein legislators blend, compromise, affiliate, and with purposeful intent have collectively deduced that it is much safer (reelection considerations) to hide within the majority of opinions than to step forward and be distinguished. Because there is a human empathy for the commonality of behavioral dysfunction, tragedy, financial inequality; a differing of social and cultural upbringing. Many of the elected, in the interest of buying votes, have decided that government should fund entitlements, grants, and loans as well as all sorts of social, educational, and economic development programs to right any and all wrongs that could possibly be attributed to anyone not born into a financially functional family.

Obama has just put forth his budget; he has chosen to follow instead of lead. Rather than addressing the issues of the day he is playing the political game of 2012 reelection. He is the quintessential follower posing as a leader — he is a spokesperson, a representative of a political ideology — nothing more. Leadership is a distinctive trait; one knows it when one sees it. A leader embodies confidence, takes all the responsibility, and knows he or she has just one obligation, and that is to be right. Obama and his confederates are lost in the ‘wilderness of wish-it-was-so;’ they are the weight around the ankles of self-determination, self-reliance, and values that aggregate to form American exceptionalism.

We do need to rid this nation of the Obamas of the world; the election right around the corner, opportunity is nearby… but conservative principled leadership is required!