Transparency in Government-Really?

31 01 2009
.
 The Ruse of Transparency
Authored by:  William Robert Barber

I believe hidden in plain sight is what not only the Obama administration but many state, county and city governments call transparency. The tone of the word transparency has many positive connotations, the public relations hype on the importance of governmental transparency has no public opposition, conceptually, consensus is strong and resolved that transparency should be a governmental requirement not an arbitrary decision. The PR idea is to post via the Internet legislative pending or resulting governmental actions so that the public can scrutinize. The underlining basis of this newly invigorated sponsorship of transparency is the supposition that by publishing legislative action there will be less governmental nonsense, corruption and outright stupidity; after all, the public will be viewing and reviewing, thus, because of transparency, elected officials will be guarded and concerned about a public backlash on issues such as tax increases.

In the interest of understanding this new buzz word of Obama and company: Transparency. A few of the synonyms that help define the word transparency are clearness, lucidity, simplicity; the antonyms would be ambiguity, vagueness, or indistinctness. Now that we have the word transparency defined and boxed into the unmistakable, let’s test its value. Many to a majority of Americans have invested their personal monies into the equity or bond market. The broker-dealers who offer these securities must meet very strict rules and regulations enforced by the SEC in order to submit these investment opportunities to the public. Hence, if there is ever a test as to the veracity of transparency it is those thousands of public traded companies who publish not only a GAAP standard balance sheet but must comply, in the interest of transparency, with a multitude of public filings. A real good example of the real-world merit and veracity of transparency are those balance sheets published by AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros., Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase; the list goes on and on; despite their compliance to strict transparency standards all of these entities were actually impaired and needed federal funds in order to operationally continue. Of course two in my list did go bust after being denied federal cash. So much for the value of transparency!

How many people on this planet can actually read, analysis and interpret the applicable meaningfulness of Bank of America’s balance sheet? Damn few! But even for those few who could understand the bank’s balance sheet the information posted maybe in compliance but it is designed as a record of what happened in arrears; in other words, the real time present is not indicated as a part of GAAP accounting. The real time present accounting is a Performa of anticipation with the well documented and affixed in plain view caveat: This Is a Guess.

My point is that the prevailing transparency of Obama and the like is a ruse, a deception stated boldly in plain view. This ruse is perpetrated by the want-to-be powerful to placate the electorate. Those in power will never allow the public to see with unobstructed simplicity the clarity of their actions.

One more point of transparency, how many legislators read and comprehend the text of the multi-bills, laws, amendments, and word cleverness edits or additions inserted by non elected staff?

Governing is a complex ambiguous business because we have allowed our governing to slip away from our grip. Today even public referendums mean nothing to a lot less; the people have been usurped by the licensed and privileged. This issue of transparency as presented in full view is a sham because of the inherent voluminous library of information, the specificity of the vocabulary presented, and the manner of presentation. True transparency would have layman language, pictures, and DVD explanations, there would be an Internet delivered Q&A component to governmental actions.

It is one thing to print governmental activities in plain view another to do so in a manner of layman comprehension.





Obama – Panetta No-Torture Doctrine is Playing Patty-Cake With Terrorists

31 01 2009
.
At What Priuce?
Authored by:  William Robert Barber

It is not a normal occurrence that an incoming administration, will, with grand purposeful intent, create a problem as distinguishable as closing the military prison on Guantanamo. If one is of the liberal persuasion then one must have truly enjoyed the theatrics, timing and follow-up pageantry of the Obama signing. Of course, the solution, which should precede the affirmation of any decision, has not been declared; the President, for reasons of political repute, has inverted the problem-solution equation in favor of the grandiose.

The Panetta nomination follows in suite, with the closing of Guantanamo; Obama is putting together a matching set of stupid decisions. Mr. Panetta, in the throes of a war, with no experience, has accepted a nomination that more than any other office in the land is directly responsible for safeguarding the nation from a terrorist attack. The nominee has a track record of views on the definition of torture, specifically, the practice of waterboarding and enhanced interrogations. Last year he wrote in the Washington Monthly that even if waterboarding could stop the next terrorist attack or suicide bomber, it (waterboarding) should not be permitted. Is it possible that Mr. Panetta might ask for a waiver if family targeted by the terrorist was his or the President’s?

The intelligence community has documented the effectiveness of waterboarding as well as enhanced interrogations inclusive of this documentation are specific instances of success in stopping these terrorist plots. Despite the obvious success of the past Mr. Obama in agreement with his nominee has stated; “No administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ Like waterboarding, head-slapping and extreme temperatures.” These two gentlemen are in agreement on playing paddy-cake, paddy-cake, with terrorist; those very terrorist that killed 3,000 Americans, the very ones that presently plot and plan to kill as many of our nation’s citizens as possible. I often wonder: What planet does Obama-Panetta live on? Surely they have not lived on planet Earth.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-the master mind of 9/11-underwent waterboarding while in CIA custody. Does it follow that closing the Guantanamo prison and bringing this killer of innocence’s to the USA for trial, because he was ‘tortured under Obama rules’ would therefore entail throwing out all the evidence against this terrorist under on the “exclusionary rule” and his case dismissed?

Since 9/11 the US government has targeted terrorist by utilizing armed unmanned aerial vehicles; these targeted persons have not received a trial, the evidence against them has not been examined, they are being assassinated without the right to a fair trial; is this act not a greater sin than torture? Why is it acceptable for the CIA to kill targeted individual of senior al-Qaeda but not use enhance interrogation techniques once captured?

A few questions of Panetta: Obama has stated in certain terms his interest in capturing or killing Osama whether in Pakistan or not; well, let’s say the devil is captured, where would you hold him? And if the mass murder decides not to talk, let’s say, Mr. Panetta, your pretty-please form of interrogation does not entice Osama to spill-the-beans, so you follow your doctrine of no-torture-allowed; in a month, there is a nuclear detonation, a massive conventional series of suicide bombing attacks or a nerve gas explosion in New York City. Naturally, the possibility, indeed more than likely, the probability would be presented that Osama knew of the attack the conclusion would follow that waterboarding or enhance interrogation could have prevented the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The issue of grave concern is will President Obama, Mr. Panetta, and all of your friendly liberals that are in allegiance with your ‘stupid techniques’, those of you who live as if in a Pepsi-Cola commercial, those of you who function best in a dimension other than reality, what is the recourse if you all are wrong about the definition of torture?

This entire Obama-Panetta policy of closing Guantanamo before a solution is discovered, of treating terrorist as if they are some NYC street gang; and of managing a war with campaign election rhetoric will not safeguard America. Their failure is forthcoming. The question is at what price.





America’s Political Obligation

27 01 2009
,
Is anyone interested in the question or the answer?
Authored by:  William Robert Barber

Since the convincing defeat of the GOP in the recent November election, the most ubiquitous question asked of the defeated by the triumphant liberal media is not a question at all; but, an only slightly veiled declaration of victory-the victory-of liberalism over conservatism. The declaratory question is posed something like this: “your party has suffered an ignominious rebuttal; the electorate has overwhelmingly rejected your candidates in favor of the Democratic field. Is this not the end of the so-called Republican values? The American people have had enough of the Bush doctrine and its mode of ‘cowboy’ foreign policy. Will you sir (or Madame) not affirm these facts?”

So far, the answers to this liberal-media-derived-declarative-style of questioning have been as unsubstantial and disingenuous as the question itself. The questioner is not really interested in the answer and the one answering has no idea how to bring the dead back to life. The answerer’s dance to the question renders almost immediate discomfort to the listener’s sensibilities because the answerer’s contextual is an almost juvenile response.  With no hesitation or forethought the answerer pledges the party’s return to the GOP’s founding principles; thereby, earning the electorate’s respect, trust and the next election. The questioner of liberal persuasion is elated, listener bored, and the answerer just as befuddled before the question was asked.  I must admit when the question is asked by a conservative media source the questioner and question is contextually kinder and delivered with genuine regard; nonetheless, the answer is just as disconcerting.

Propagandized, bullied, deceived, bribed, and contrived we citizens have lost our way; we have allowed the political spam of our political parties to be downloaded into our sense of righteousness. In congruity with the political parties, we citizens now actually believe, fanatically so, that the all-important objective of good citizenship is to affiliate and win the election.  The Democrats and the Republicans have sold us a Bill of Goods and we willingly have discarded our sense of values for the pretense of the government offerings.

Both political parties have aided and abetted the largeness of the central government. Federal taxes, fees, licensing, fines, and penalties have enriched and empowered the central government’s harvesting of cash; the other end of that funnel is the exclusive right of distribution of the very cash harvested. This power of distribution to private enterprise, public institutions, state coffers, it’s wholly owned entities and departments, have disabled the independence of those beneficiaries of federal cash in direct proportion to the enhancement of federal power. Power is the feed for and of corruption; power will corrupt; it is only a matter of when and how.

The answer to the liberal media’s question is that the American people have elected their government. This government also represents the interest and perspective of conservatives, independents, as well as, Republicans. It is incumbent upon the Obama government and to those who did not vote for the president to enjoin where possible and to voice and act in opposition when in disagreement. The Republican Party is a choice for voters; choice is essential to a politically pluralist society. Whether or not the GOP achieves electoral success is a matter managed by the American people; the party’s obligation is to set forth its governing philosophy, its legislative agenda, it objectives, and principles of political engagement in a form that is clear, honest and forthright. If the majority of the electorate vote for other than Republican candidate; so be it, the GOP does not change its intrinsic beliefs because the party did not win an election.





The Israel-Palestinian Mêlée

24 01 2009

 

Authored by:  William Robert Barber

Hamas is a Sunni brotherhood. Formed in 1987 and presently lead by Khaled Meshal, who having survived an Israeli assassination in Jordon, now, safely sequestered, he issues orders out of Damascus. Since there has been a Hamas its aim, intent, and mission has been the destruction of Israel; it’s strippenzieher or hauptfuehrer, Iran, (I believe both of these German expressions defines Iran as more than an enthusiastic lobbyist) is and has for years, enabled and advantaged the anti-Jewish hysteria of the region. As evidenced by the recent Gaza bombing by Israeli air and artillery, Gaza is the most recent example of Iranian gratification; Iranian influence on Hamas militancy has successfully positioned Israel with the reasoning for retaliation and for reasons of their own Israel has obliged.

Madness has embroiled these ancient bloodlines; once again, lunacy has driven these peoples of common history to justify the killing of women and children. This story of violent conflict is ten thousand years old; the madness will continue…

Because of United States cultural affiliation, Judeo-Christian heritage and geo-strategic obligations, US interest is embedded in the survival of Israel; obviously, that position is counter to the interest of Hamas, Iran, Syria, as well as, most if not all of the Middle Eastern governments. The Israel-Palestinian mêlée is an argument of intrinsic confrontation that will perpetuate like an internal propulsion engine into infinity. The only answer to resolving the conflict is to re-invent the definition of peace.

Possibly peace for Israel should mean that the less than 1% of its peoples are not being killed or maimed in some aggressive manner by any counter-party. This new definition of peace will allow the Israeli politicians to declare a new era of peace and simply take credit. Of course this new definition is applicable only to Israel, the Palestinians, will stand just as disregarded and manipulated as before; nevertheless, at a minimum one of the parties to the conflict will boast a peaceful existence.

All humanitarian efforts by Western nations, over these many, many, years, the food, clothing, outright cash, or any other sort of ‘give-a ways’ seem to enrich the empowered of the Palestinian peoples instead of the common. Certainly, US resources all supported by its taxpayers, have not made the American government or its people anymore endearing to the Palestinians.

So far, American engagement has shown little benefit…all we really seem to accomplish is to throw money at the wall as if it was mud…to date nothing has stuck.





Nothing Like Fair & Unbiased Coverage of the News !!!

24 01 2009

You Have to Love Our Media

And the beat goes on and the nay-sayers persist in their intractable denial.

 Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:

“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”

“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”

 “Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft” 

 Headlines Today:

“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $150 million”

 “Obama Spends $150 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”

 “Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate”

 “Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”

Nothing like fair & unbiased coverage of the news !!!





People Have Followed Their Elected Piped Pipers Over the Abyss

20 01 2009

Obama and the left-leaning Democratic Party has completed the lawful subjugation of individual freedom

Authored by:  William Robert Barber

Thousands of years ago man discovered fire and domesticated animals. The hunter-gatherer transformed its self by reaping what it planted; farming created a new wealth and stabilized communities. Governing took on many forms, most of these forms, emphasized the power of the governor over those governed. Draconian rules and regulations forced its effect on the individual; such governmental commands, drastically limited or outright eliminated personal even the freedom of institutions and businesses. Then in 1776, a Declaration of Independence bellowed out the grievances of heretofore English subjects; a long war ensued; by 1789, a Constitution, as well as, an insistence upon Bill of Rights was enacted – free people started their journey of self governance.

Now, eight to ten thousand years after the establishment of first city, American’s governments (federal, state, county, and city) has finally, after over two hundred years of resisting socialistic policies the ideology of the collective has prevailed over the value of the individual. Socialistic principles have captured the flag of existentialism. The governments of this nation utilizing its brethren of attorneys, accountants, politicians, courts, professional bureaucrats, appointed brokers, unions, and the hierarchy of government employed supervisory-managers have diluted the freedom of individuals in favor of government encroachment and control. These advocates of government-largeness have injected government oversight and interference in every material transaction and event; they have even subjected the ownership of personal property to its whim. The election of the Obama administration and the left-leaning Democratic Party has completed the lawful subjugation of individual freedom. Interestingly, the people, have for the most part, willingly, some even cheerfully, followed their elected piped pipers over the abyss.

The people have selected the Democratic Party’s political-hawker’s promise of physical security. The people now believe that the foreign policy agenda proclaimed by Obama administration will protect this nation from its enemies. The people have bought the assurance of personal financial surety; after all, 95% (of these people) will receive a check in the mail; for these recipients, the benevolence of the federal government’s noblesse oblige sense of righteousness has validated itself. The populous phenomenon, I label, as Liberal Progressive Socialism bought the election with the promises of bread, wine, the media’s complicity and the Obama rhetoric.

A liberal-progressive favors reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual; additionally, the word liberal could be defined as a person or entity that was broad-minded, forbearing, and is cognizant, as well as, possessing an in depth understanding of differing prospective and behavioral norms. Doesn’t sound all so bad; the contrary of such a definition must be no good even close to evil.

Of course, I the consummate conservative cannot trust words; we all heard the words of the Republican Party when they were in power; behavior is the barometer of truthfulness. Reform for its own sake is nothing less than contrarianism. All political parties are designed around the maintenance and or attainment of power. Therefore, the exactness of why term limits and transparency are not an inherent or intrinsic course of action by those who govern. Distribution of wealth is always scary but if distribution merits inclusion within policy I suggest it should start by taking in an excess of $500,000 all the Democratic Party’s elected millionaire representatives and spreading it about those poor people they boast affiliation and fraternity. Obama has suggested as much…of course he was talking about our money not his or his confederates.





Liberal-Socialist Give Taxpayer Dollars Away By The Billions

17 01 2009
.
Why Not Increase Revenue Instead of Penalizing Success –
The Right Encouragement
Authored by William Robert Barber

If the Obama government could simply back off the populous nonsense’s of increasing taxes on the (yet to be clearly defined) wealthy citizens, private or publicly traded corporations, and tens of millions of small business in favor of the contrary; although, Pelosi and Reid may bark and whine, congress would comply with the Obama ‘new realism’; I believe a case for decreasing the GAAP measured tax on profits, by the respected, could be established and levied on the doubtful. Strenuously noting the result of such a tax-policy will lessen the risk of a prolonged recession because of the substantial proof that tax revenues will positively increase in proportion to the nation’s GNP. Nevertheless, the raison d’être of implementing a policy of tax decrease versus increase is to stimulate the economy. The a priori of human sensibilities evidences, that the most ever lasting persuasion on another citizen is that encouragement founded on self enrichment and self-service.

Why give away taxpayer dollars by the billions when all that needs to be enacted is the right encouragement? Why not have governments that enlist the economically meaningful into the cause of increasing revenues instead of penalizing them for their success? Under strict and precise underwriting, I am not against the principle of government investing in private enterprise; quite the contrary, however, if the government found it prudent to invest in banks, car manufacturing and insurance companies why not have congress simply guarantee these investments by a majority and allow private citizens into such investments?

Naturally, this offering of mine will metaphorically be a slap-in-the-face to all liberal-socialist who are adversely against any tax policy that abates the wealthiest of Americans personal tax obligation, certainly, these liberal-socialist insist that corporations should be increasingly penalized for making a profit, and those small business entrepreneurs are cheating on their ‘real’ tax obligations anyway. Besides the entire economic concept, say the Pelosi’s of the far-left, is the ‘idea’ of a progressive tax policy wherein re-distribution of personal income and corporate revenue inherently mandates fairness. For the liberal-socialist-progressives the policy of re-distribution is philosophically essential to their political dogma. After all societal, cultural, and behavioral norms need to be influenced, pushed, and pulled into conformity and accordance with their liberal-progressive ideals.

I do find it interesting that all of these political progressives are filthy rich. Did they not benefit from the very economic system they now call unfair? I think they protest too much as they are willfully buying votes from those who have less.

But then what do I know? Just another former Marine working to get pass GO so he can pay more taxes to the governments of this nation so they can increase their respective budgets, enlarge their influence on those who have less, and take more from those who have more.