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’S PROMISES OF CHANGE

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the final of the final, after all the campaign hoopla about “change we can believe in”, it is now apparent that the electorate’s vote for Obama’s version of “change” has resulted in a federal deficit three times greater than the previous. Despite the Obama economic team’s forecast of no more than 8%, unemployment is now nearly 10%. Unequivocally, we who have not drunk the Obama elixir understand that his economic advisors were incorrect in their math, mistaken as to the effect of the Obama stimulus, and downright erroneous as to its forecasted result.

I ask: Does the result of Obama’s last nine months in management instill confidence? What about the specifics of his economic emphasis and directives? Does the guarantee of universal health coverage via a single payer system evoke more fear than comfort?

We now know that the candidate Obama feinted (during the campaign) a center-left political standard; wherein, once sworn in, President Obama has been identified as a politician imbued with Marxian ideals. An example of his socialistic intentions is found within the top of his domestic agenda — Healthcare reform; when the legislative proposal includes government control of 16 to 20 percent of the national economy, the government has imposed National Socialism.

By his own volition, the president has appointed a number of “workers of the state”, dubbed “czars” by the media. These are people whose primary obligation is to aid, assist, and promote the president’s general policies. Of course once one scrutinizes the background and political ideals of some of these appointees, a prudent person might have cause to be concerned. The concern hedges around the number of czars (32), as well as the background of the actual person appointed; thankfully, not all but a few of these appointees have very strong Marxist influences. Is this not a reflection on the president’s political leaning and inclinations? Why is the president attacking Fox News?

I do remember the Obama pledge of transparency coupled with CSPAN access; during another one of his many campaign speeches he includes as a tangible example, a promise to post pending legislation on the Internet 3 days before the vote is taken. That promise, along with the promise that his administration would not hire lobbyist — well that promise of the president has gone into the waste basket along with transparency; now, we of the electorate understand the meaning of Obama’s promise for change one can believe in.

Just recently the president (March of this year), with clear definitive language, declared Afghanistan a war this nation cannot afford to lose. With pomp and vigor he declared a new military leader as the right general to implement the winning strategy of counter insurgency. In short order the general studied the terrain and situation and presented his plan with requirements. One of these requirements was a substantial increase in troop strengt — which did not go over well with the liberals and the left of Obama’s political base. You see, everyone on the left of center understood that declaring the Afghanistan war, the real war on terror, was a ruse to inflict as much political damage to Bush’s war in Iraq. The political left does not want to defend American interest in far flung destinations; they want the UN to deal with such matters.

Russia must be rolling over with laughter as to this president’s and Sectary Clinton’s foreign policy; Putin is on top of his game all the while humiliating the United States at every turn. The Putin game is about European Domination via an energy monopoly. After all, between Russia and Iran they control, in the region, the majority of natural gas resources; no need to play nice with the United States, with Obama and Clinton; Russia is well represented.

President Obama recently suggested that he needs time. Time for the stimulus to take effect, time to pass his socialist economically costly legislation, time to clean up the mess Bush left behind, and time to right the wrong the rich capitalist levied on the middle and poor class of Americans. Well, this nation has no time to implement economic policies that counter sensibility, nor the time to inflate the deficit beyond the means of prudent management.

We Americans handed Obama an electoral victory and expect more and better than his present effort.

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.

WHAT TO BELIEVE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Within the generally accepted mores of our modern society, but particularly in the communicative contextual of politicians, seemingly, respective of the politician’s choice of expressiveness, truth is not a requirement. Like never before, the rhetorical inventories for politicians consist of exaggeration, disinformation, misinformation, and outright distortion; such far less than the truth expressions have overwhelmed straightforwardness, honesty, and candor. But most regretfully, nowadays the public considers such bombastic lying as the norm.

It seems that in the current era of mass media what is demonstrably true and what is believed to be true is negligible. Indeed, for the majority of constituents the greater part of a politician’s persuasion is not presumed to be founded on the pragmatic experience of sensory observation but on the politician’s particular style of delivery. The merit of a speech’s content is judged more by the eloquence of intonations, the stage from which the oral appeal is presented, instead of the actual of what is being said.

With political speech, evidence that deductively form the basis of truth is set aside. No matter the depths of its veracity, evidence always looses when contested with the simplicity of an often repeated catchy phrase or slogan. Repetition’s only requirement for believability is reiteration of the same message over and over again.

In other words, when politicians speak, the objective truth of the concern has only the slightest of relevance as to its truthfulness. Although we persons of the modern era pride ourselves as logical and scientifically founded, in the full view of all media outlets politicians have seized upon the populous inclination to compromise, tolerate, and lower truth’s criteria. Wherein the objective measure of truthfulness is ostensibly valued as the sum of deductive inquiry, this empirically definitive platform is not the criteria of or for popular believe. Hence in today’s America politicians can maneuver and manipulate the truth at the will of the last poll or focus group findings.

Because of lazy minds and the lenient characteristics of inductive thinking the “average Joe or Mary” equates general information as if it was the result of specific intelligence gathering. They encompass rumor and innuendo as factual or at worst something close to the fact.

I do want to believe that when it comes to items of material consideration such as national security, legislation, presidential edicts, orders issued by the judicial system, and strategic military decisions, I truly need to believe that the contextual composition of these considerations are prepared free of rhetorical distortion or purposeful ambiguity. I want to believe that the propagated intent of the politician is founded on the resolute, willful utility of truthfulness — but of course I do not.

WHAT PRICE LIBERTY?

Authored by William Robert Barber

What price liberty? The liberty I speak of is the liberty of mind, body, and spirit;the liberty that resides within the context of a free person’s heart. It is that very liberty that is asked to cede part sometimes a significant part to government. The liberty of one’s mind, body, and spirit is the tripartite of elements that enable freedom of thought and action to function. Additionally and in keeping with the freedom of thought and action is a uniquely American inalienable privilege — the priviledge to exercise free of government (legislative or regulatory) mandate or interference any action deemed to be in the contrary of this nation’s traditional existential ethos.

America is the land of the free and the brave. Individual liberty is an American rite of passage and should not be denied or supplanted at the whim of judicial or legislative edict. For instance, America is a capitalistic culture much less a capitalistic economy; hence, any action by government for any reason, that engenders any domestic policy that abates in any form the further erosion of individual liberty must be subject to a national referendum requiring over 65% of the vote in order to be counted as an affirmation.

Withstanding, the persuasiveness of those that recommend the compromise of liberty at the behest of the ever so righteous common good; liberty must never yield. What the compromiser asks for is the willful abatement of individual liberties so that a committee of government is the jurisdiction of ultimate recourse. The primary inducement employed by the compromiser is the promise of government protection. As proof of their sincerity The Constitution is put forth as a binding definitive of individual rights. There are citizens who would be satisfied with such a trade. The compact with the persuader obligates the individual to surrender an agreed portion of their liberty for the government’s promise of beneficial entitlement and security; the individual has sold his liberty for the government’s subjective warranty of good intention. The price of individual liberty has been purchased for at best a promise to deliver.

History has documented a different story of government promises. In short order, the original understanding of the trade changes; previous understandings are altered by courts and regulators, what was once clear and objective is now ambiguous and subjective. The power of government supersedes all previous conventional contemplation of possibilities…politically motivated ideologist , costume, accentuate and disseminate their beliefs; counter ideologues respond with varying intensities of respectful or disrespectful regard. Within a generation or more the concept of individual liberty seems passé; the new concept is no longer a matter of trading liberty for the promise of a better life… Before long the individual has no liberty to barter. Now the citizen has been indoctrinated and wholly endorses the fantasy of entitlement; the citizen believes it to be not only a truism but an obligation of government. The presiding government is now oblivious to the obvious; government no longer possesses the ability to alter its course. Liberty and capitalism is now a chapter in the history books-probably a small chapter.

Fifty percent more or less of today’s Americans have willingly given up all the tangibles of liberty; such as: The liberty or freedom to fail and therefore suffer the consequences of failure; under the guise of health and the blessings of long life the individual’s right of making the wrong decision as applied to food and drink is now being decided by congress. Of course the true interest of congress has little to nothing to do with healthfulness but is a simple cause for egregious taxation. It is the cabal of the elect, the staffed and the appointed of government that have once again overreached their authority. Legislators in their pseudo-wisdom have decided that smoking cigarettes, excessively drinking alcohol or the metaphoric jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is either immoral or behaviorally dysfunctional for its citizens. Naturally, all of this nastiness must be taxed…

The persistent counter argument of individuals’ liberty, seemingly, is the concept of “in the interest of the common good”. The compromiser of liberty may fashion phrases such as “a level playing field”, “spread the wealth”, or a pledge to help the poor and disenfranchised. I simply do not believe the promises of those that ask or demand me to trade my individual liberty for the common good. I have never heard of a government or any entity pledging to take more from the poor people or declare that enslaving the disentranced as a means or a battle cry of solicitation for their cause. Quite the contrary; I have heard Obama as he pledged to give cash to those who have less cash and to not tax anyone who makes less than $250,000. Indeed, Obama suggested that making $500,000 a year is more than enough money.

I do know factually that Napoleon marched his army throughout Europe under the slogan of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality while killing hundreds of thousands; he did so after every citizen of the Republic surrendered their citizenship to the Emperor and his empire.

There is an ultra-class of citizens who have captured the congress; this class thinks very highly of themselves, so much so many serve for life terms… These politicians of varying ideologues are rescinding our liberties and usurping our individual rights by two very destructive tactics: Increasing the size of government and increasing taxes and fees upon all that have the means to pay. The nation is governed by two political parties; both have betrayed the trust of the people; but the Obama administration’s interest is to absolve individual liberty in favor of the state. Obama’s interest is counter to America’s fealty of ethos and mandatory obligation to the free peoples of the world.

Individual liberty is a priceless tangible; Americans paid and are paying for that liberty with blood… Liberty is not a commodity; it cannot be traded, purchased, or usurped.

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.

THE FEDS

Authored by William Robert Barber

The federal government, by taking bits & pieces as well as snatching huge swaths of power from what was heretofore the state’s sole and unabridged indisputable authority, has effectively perverted the original meaningfulness of the Constitution of 1787. Interestingly, aside from the post civil war era, the snatching of these rights was affirmed by the very congresspersons sent to the House and Senate to protect and preserve the Constitution. Indeed, the mood of today’s congressional attitude is, more rather than less, to shape the Constitution by the perceived light of today’s priorities and governing adaptation. The Constitution’s original contextual intent is all too ready to be set aside by courts, contrary law, or selected enforcement.

Did the framers of the Constitution foresee that the right of Congress to tax would translate into the power to tax individual citizens on their personal income? Obviously not, otherwise there wouldn’t be any need for an amendment; those who voted for such an amendment to the Constitution did so in violation of the framers’ intent. In fact, the 16th amendment, ratified July 2nd, 1913, was a benchmark of stupendous measure; in fact it was the beginning of the end of our republic.

Although federal dominance of the state’s right started almost from the very beginning of the republic, it wasn’t until the effectual of federal right to tax and distribute that the overpowering of state’s right become a factual. The super-federalization of the nation, crystallized as the lethal adversary of state sovereignty after the civil war. The draconian compliance to socialistic policies established by FDR turned the nation abruptly from the virtues of self-determination and self-reliance to relying on the evergreen assurances and promises of the federal government. Dependence became an entitlement, a right of citizenship, all bowed before the Pharaoh of public works, city owned parks & recreational facilities. Public education administered by the federal government and its cadre of unionized school teachers taught our children the political persuasion most suited to the ideology of liberal and progressive philosophy. In addition to this curriculum of teaching, secularism is a dominant consideration when contesting traditional theologies, except when discussing the teachings of Mohammed. Government salaries rise in proportion to the percentage of government union workers; soon the cost of governing spirals beyond tax revenue. No matter, government gets into the casino business; it hawks lottery tickets and taxes all consumption. The federal government is now so immense, it ignores the very source of its revenue; it does so with lustful disdain for popular recourse, blatant disrespect for its constituency, and arrogant disregard for the spirit of the law.

Slowly, by means ever so clandestine and overt, by the insidious propagation of half-truths, deceptive pronouncements, misdirection, and pseudo-transparency, the federal government marketed their governing dominance over what was once understood as exclusive to the rights of states. It must be noted that, withstanding the entrenchment of FDR’s brand of socialism into the nation’s operating systems, Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush administrations, endorsed the precedence by offering the very same. Charging the fare of liberty and freedom, ‘free’ bread, beer, and circus was offered to one and all. The people, after paying their fare, ate, drank, and were entertained.

In direct proportion to the ever growing omnipotent force of federal authority which was once reserved to the power of states, so is the steady regression of individual rights and freedom.

Now the Obama administration is about to nationalize healthcare and energy and all the while forcing states to comply with a number of federal mandates in order to receive federal funds. Where is that manifested in the Constitution? I fear the very worst; the dragon is not in the cave, the king is not looking for a worthy knight to save the day. The dragon is amidst this nation’s very bastions of power and privilege — He is Barrack Obama.

I DON’T THINK THAT ELEPHANTS CAN FLY

Authored by William Robert Barber

Unless elephants learn to fly or by means other than the Democrats’ pre-recess playbook on ‘the selling of healthcare to the great unwashed’ which heretofore was vested in the now debunked hypothesis that Obama’s hero-protagonist popularity will put down the ‘blue-dogs.’ After all, controlling the conservative wing of the Democratic Party is a Pelosi ‘give-no-quarter’ requirement for the eventual success of her liberal-progressive legislation.

Well, not only were the conservatives within the Democratic Party not swayed to be put down, the draconian persuasion of the liberal-progressive wing back-fired in a manner that not even the great modern day Machiavellian Rahm Emanuel could envision. The great unwashed, with passive outrage, questioned the motivation, legislative integrity, and sensibility of not only a nationalized approach on healthcare; but took the occasion to question all of the federal government’s actions since, and the months leading up to Obama’s inaugural.

There is a prevailing point of view that President Obama’s version of nationalized healthcare will fade into the abyss of compromise. The compromised version will not have any of the material characteristics of the original; nevertheless, Obama will declare victory and move on to other legislative issues in his pursuit of implanting a pro-union expansive government, coupled with higher taxes, all the while, if applicable subordinating governing policy, agencies, departments, and the state school system into a pro-socialist populism that is designed to degenerate and substitute traditional American values for those of the secular progressive.

Of course, it’s not over until the fat lady sings, there is a chance that Obama will not compromise his single-payer vision; presently, the Democrats are huddling. The notables of the liberal progressives are licking their wounds after running right into the people’s double coverage and stubborn disregard. Their liberal progressive offensive might be staggering, but they are far from dead. They know full well that they desperately need a new down field play, or national healthcare will be benched until next season. I expect a surge; a new strategy will appear before September 15, and this time they know the extent of their opposition.

Interestingly, every time the great orator stands to explain healthcare, the proposal’s negatives rise even higher; the populous clearly disagrees with the Obama and Pelosi version of healthcare legislation. For passage, things look bleak, but then, the Democrats are resourceful. Surely they will package a new approach before attempting the political suicide of reconciliation.

If the Democrats insist on a single-payer nationalized approach to healthcare, such an adherence is another example of ideology triumphing over governing sensibility. In the last six months the tax-and-spend Democrats have, by a marathon, out-distanced the spend-what-we-don’t-have Republicans; clearly, the choice for the American voter is the worse of two incompetents. It is obvious, both political parties have strayed off the fairway and into the rough; not sure if they will ever find that little white ball of prudent governess. It seems very unlikely… just as elephants that can fly.