THE CONVOLUTED SUBJECTIVE OF POLITICS

30 07 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

Like pigeons at a park or the sound of NYC cabbies honking their way thru traffic, the incessant gamut of noise generated by the media, editorialist, political pundits, politicians, academic personalities, in addition to the lot of radio personalities of sorted opinion, in aggregate, overwhelms the listener, viewer, or reader. With differing degrees of clarity and distinction, all of the before mentioned are commenting as to the disposition, motivation, consequence, probability, and real-meaning of Obama policies, sponsored by the Democratic majority.

A favorite topic of the ‘in the news’, interestingly, is the rabid commenting on the most noteworthy group within the dissenters; (particularly when it comes to Obama care) the Democrats within the Democratic Party. Surely, Pelosi and Obama are, at the very least, a bit frustrated over this particular development. Imagine, fiscally concerned Democrats disagreeing with the powerful left wing of the party; possibly, there is a measure of sensibility within the heart and mind of those elected to serve their constituents. Or maybe, just possibly, this fiscal concern of ’blue dog’ Democrats elected to represent a conservative populous, is directly bridged to the 2010 elections, wherein a vote for Obama care is a vote for a Republican at the next election?

Since the election of 1800, the counter-parties counter, the proponents of synthesis synthesize, and the politicians maneuver and manipulate. This ancient maelstrom of traditional discourse is taking place while the politically astute even the pseudo-astute rotate wet index finger into the wind in an effort to sense public opinion. Politicians with multiple advisors in hand contemplate the public relations advantage of being identified as the hen or the fox; after all, politics is like dodging mortar rounds one never really knows whether to leap left or right.

But then, no matter how knowledgeable the representative’s campaign manager, press spokesperson, or chief of staff, there are no harbingers; everyone is guessing. So, who really knows the electorate’s inclination? The electorate is whimsical. Sometimes for reasons ambiguous they actually run counter to focus groups or the most scientifically administered poll. Often, voters are measurable and easily swayed; at the same instance, these rascals are treacherously unpredictable. Certainly, politicians have evidenced the circumstance wherein voters were dangerously empathic to the strangest of prompts.

The former Governor of California, Davis, is an excellent case study of voter unpredictability; in this case, for trying to raise a fee on vehicle registrations, a referendum gained enough support to kick him out of office. Recently, under the most difficult of fiscal conditions, the very same voters actually said “No Thanks” to more taxes. The California dispute over the cost of governing is still waging but the legislators are doing this Krieg without eating up more of the taxpayers’ money. By the way, vehicle registration fees did go up; timing, in life and politics, seems to mean everything when measured in finality.

I am not sure why it is, but it does seem that voters, on a wide variety of foreign and domestic issues, are constantly relearning the same lesson over and over again. One would think that history, after extensive documentation and profuse dissemination to a literate populous, would utilize the data-banked evidence as a benchmark of accepted fact.

But instead, the proponents of a liberal/socialistic economic-political agenda redesigns or costumes the topic or issue of concern differently, resubmits the very same paradigm that has been proven unworkable and for reasons unreasonable actually predict that the result is going to be different this time.

The One True Maxim of Government: After literally thousands of years of monitoring and measuring, the result of the governed by that which governs has the one undeniable political constant; when given the opportunity, the governing entity will suppress, by means legal or extralegal the individual rights and freedoms of those that are governed.

President Obama and his socialistically inclined confederates withstanding…Government serves the people best when it is responsible for less not more; the largeness of government will and since the founding of the republic, has, replaced individual rights and freedom with entitlements, bureaucracy, and oligarchy. The government never gives without taking; there is no value without a price-nothing is free.

Advertisements




I JUST DO NOT FIT INTO THE OBAMA MOLD

24 07 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

If only I was poor. An ethnic minority; an illegal living in a sanctuary city, a welfare-enriched mother of five, almost any kind of-validated by congressional liberals-victim; if only, at bare minimum, I was a union member; or a diehard socialist enjoying the Phoenix of FDR political principles; then I could really get behind this entire Obama happening.

Although I certainly have been poor; alas, I am not poor. I grew up poor. But my timing of such status was not very good. In my time (of poverty) being on the dole meant community charities with little or no state welfare; it was the Catholic Church and their parishioners that gave shelter, food, and clothing to needy families.

My status as a member of an ethnic minority passed with the last great Irish-potato migration. As for joining any union: The very thought of paying another business within a business to represent my interest with management is just too convoluted and self-dealing for me to ever be a union member.

The ethos of socialism is repugnant to me and certainly counter-intuitive to my belief in sovereign self-determination or existentialism. Within the present administration, the indication are that no congressional liberal will cede me any convenience; indeed, by some unknown contrivance, liberals think of my small business endeavor and conservative political beliefs as part of the problem not an example of the overall solution.

I am one of those persons Charlie Rangel has designated as stalwart enough to pay additional monies on top of the progressively egregious tax-penalty one is designated to pay for the socialistic sin of financial success. The explanation is that I have taken more than my fair share; they go on to explain that I was protected and enriched for eight years by the previous administration. Therefore, now it is time to level the playing field; I have no precise understanding of what that phrase actually means but the liberals are obviously pleased with it.

I risk my capital in the marketplace, employ people, pay corporate taxes, and did not qualify for the TARP give-a-way. One would think that this administration would consider my contribution significant enough to stand aside, not meddle or harass, apparently, I am dead wrong. Indeed, instead of reinforcing my entrepreneurial traversing through the economic down turn without government assistance; my elected representatives are considering levying my individual tax obligation by taking more of my gross income.

All the leftist-liberals including: Political pundits, Joe Biden, those elected, those selected by the elected, the intellectual elite of media, as well as, academia and the desperately seeking moral redemption liberals have decided that my business will not be adversely affected by their proposed business or personal tax increase. I find little comfort with their analysis and resulting forecast; nevertheless, liberals collectively, with bombastic enthusiasm, and zero empirical evidence, confidently proclaim: To support the common good is my righteous obligation; all the while, noting quite adamantly, that neither they nor their policies are socialistic in principle.

Naturally, I have no say in defining the exactness of the common good-that sort of definitive engagement is reserved only for the elite’ potentates within the Obama circle. After all they went to Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and or Columbia-considering their qualifications the liberals counter my interest in defining the common good with: What would I know about such high fluting matters?





IDEOLOGY VS. GOOD SENSE

19 07 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

Since the Age of Reason and before we members of humankind have exhibited a consistent and devilish adherence to behaving unreasonably — although, professing sapient virtues our conduct favors the contrary — in the interest of fidelity to political ideology our president insists on an adherence to domestic policies that are not working. Despite the evidence of contradiction (to these policies) his captains align and entrench themselves with the failing policy. Denying sensibility and the rationality of pragmatism, these disciples of political ideology will not admit a mistake. Instead, they pour their collective energy into oral elongations of explanations of what they really meant when they forecasted whatever they forecadted that did not sum into its predicted result.

I think that the American people are really not interested in the definitives of a particular policy; nor do they care if the policy would be considered liberal or conservative. I believe Americans care about what works. I also believe that pretty words and pretty faces from the Obama disciples only go so far; presently, Obama and company are entering the only “so far” zone. It is not that an American is impatient; it is the simple expectation of results taking priority over a list of reasons for failure.

The electorate is discovering that Obama’s hope is nothing less than the result of guessable opinions coupled with poor planning. I believe in faith and that hope is a perversion of faith. One achieves faithfulness by the empirical measurement of substantiation. Faith is founded on the corroboration of evidence tested by the gauge of time. Obama’s economic policy is derived from his socialistic thesis that fairness is achievable by the redistribution of wealth by means of persuasion, subtle or draconic. Naturally, in the Obama world he and his disciples render the judgement of what is fair.

Obama’s healthcare plan, his cap & trade initiative, his ideas on redistribution by simply taxing the citizens of more financial wealth so that the citizens of less will be advantaged, are long held principles of a failed system called socialism. If one could example an entitlement program that is not a financial disaster awaiting impairment, please email me.

The Liberal Democrats actually believe that the mainstay, the operating mission of the US Government, is to tax and redistribute. Of course, our tax system is structured under the ridiculous theory of progressive levy wherein five percent pay the great majority of all taxes, leaving millions of Americans disregarding tax policy as an issue of concern since they pay no federal income tax. The democratic politicians figured this out a while ago… establish a financial class system and divide the vote by promising more to the less.

Well, the next election will determine this nation’s fate; if the electorate should endorse the Democrats with a continuum of majority control, this nation’s fate is sealed in a leftist bubble; if on the other hand the electorate should favor the alternative, a balance of sensibility will return to congress.

In 2010 the Republicans might have an electoral opportunity; of course, if successful, only the omnipotent one knows if they will screw this up like they did in their previous exposure to power.





TOO MANY LEFTIST-LIBERALS IN CONGRESS

5 07 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

If there should not be a substantial course correction to the political center in the house and senate in the 2010 election, the damage to this nation’s statutory being will be exacerbated beyond recourse. The existing Obama agenda of change in America is not sustainable. I have serious doubts as to the educational veracity of any congressperson who voted for the Cap and Trade Bill, H. R. 2454; in fact, those congresspersons who did indeed vote positively should file suit against their school of higher education to get their tuition money back. Suggestively, they could prosecute under the charge of fraudulent inducement.

I do recall a lesson I learned in Vietnam: Assumptions and presumptions will get one killed in combat. Before my fellow Marines and I initiated an entry into bad-guy country, we went to extensive lengths to understand the terrain, study all intelligence documents, personally verify supporting arms, and insure that we were not only properly armed but could – with surety – rely on solid communications. We knew, verbatim, our mission statement and orders; we took our efforts seriously, leaving as little to chance as possible. Our legislators, on the other hand, did not even read the legislation they voted on; but what’s really discomforting, they all admitted they did not read what they affirmed. Is this not crazy?

Why in the name of sensibility would anyone think that investing 50 billion dollars in GM should be a government function much less a prudent investment? If Obama does not want to manage car companies – simple answer – don’t invest the people’s money in car companies! Of course the complete asinine on this federal government ‘free-cash’ give-away is our former President Bush and his arrogantly incompetent Sectary of Treasury, Paulson. A republican administration seduced by fear and prompted by puzzling anxieties called upon congress to save the credit-financial market; salvation was vested in appropriating billions of dollars to buy toxic assets from the inventory of distressed banks. If that particular was not executed, default would initiate mayhem; the metaphoric sky would fall, the marketplaces of the world would collapse, and catastrophic disorders ensue.

Well, lo and behold, the toxic assets were not purchased; instead, the feds insisted on distributing billions to a multitude of banks accompanied by an opaque helter-shelter policy of what businesses to invest in and what to abandon. Congress once again voted for a bill (TARP) they did not read; this time they did so with the trigger of panic, muscled to the rear by a shaky hand. These representatives of the people, ostensibly elected for their maturity, wisdom, honestly, and sensibilities, were cajoled into submission by the flimsiest of evidence; so much for the anticipated values of stalwartly courageous leadership.

Now the congress prodded by the Obama administration is contemplating healthcare. Billions upon more than a trillion dollars worth of costs and all I have to rely on for prudent attendance to this issue is the same ignoramuses that passed the stimulus bill, TARP, and Cap and Trade. The very same congress that is responsible for the rising cost of Medicare, the robbing of social security funds, and the giving away of taxpayer monies (to the great undeserving) the country does not have…

God bless America — because certainly, congress does not.