I DON’T THINK THAT ELEPHANTS CAN FLY

29 08 2009

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.





ADVICE OFFERED BY A LEFTIST

23 08 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

At a recent Town Hall gathering Barney Frank delivered a profound communiqué to his constituents: He implicitly suggested that a voter should not trust him or the government. In this specific instance, I am going to take Barney’s advice; after all, he – like Obama – earned a law degree from the bastion of liberal learning, Harvard University. Interestingly, aside from Mr. Frank’s cautionary counsel, both of these attorneys are Democratic elitists. As a consequence, each defiantly believes that on all things material, they know better than their constituents. So let’s all take Barney’s sage advice.

In addition to Mr. Frank’s elitist status he does know how to put on a show; a host extraordinaire, Barney cuts through the audience’s question with vociferous abusive panache. His entertainment is coupled by some pandering, relentless sarcasm, and outright disrespect. Nevertheless, the town hall meeting was great theater; as always, Barney plays the feisty central character in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. An operetta wherein he is the producer, writer, cast (naturally all union), and most importantly, he is also the critic.

Now, if Barney Frank was running a for-profit entity instead of an open ended government job, his actions over the last few years would, at the extreme, prompt a criminal investigation or, at the standard, our advisor, Mr. Frank, would be ignominiously fired.

Barney Frank is in his own mind a Paladin legislator; a secular-liberal progressive inspired by his opposition to champion the right of entitlement, regardless of cost or sensibility, from cradle to grave. Considering his self-imposed mission, Barney is, by ideological passion, obligated to realign America as a socialistic state. Barney envisions his role as an enlightened politician amongst a horde of ignorant ignoramuses who do not recognize that he is the way and the light. Withstanding, Barney’s right to form and exploit his political ideology, his years of public service, his belief in his own righteousness; he is in fact, the perfect of the ineffectual, the dysfunctional and chaotic. Barney is a persistent hypocrite, a practitioner of half-truths and disinformation; although a charter member of the Noblesse Oblige, Barney’s political tenure has been purely an ideological endeavor that wholly neglects his obligation to noble service.

Barney is also a choreographer of great political influence. Elected representatives of differing political affiliation have practiced the Barney Frank dance. His dance is a sway timed to the rhythm of disingenuous lyrics. A sampling: That’s not really what I meant, it may sound contradictory but let me assure you, it is not. Yes, I voted for the bill, but not for the reasons expressed, I am against ‘pork’ or paying off special interest via earmarks; but the millions I have added on to the budget (in the dead of night) was vital and critical, I believe in transparency, I am a servant of the people, when I am coached abut town by limo or flown to far off places in a private jet, paid for by taxpayers, I do so in the interest of the people, that’s something that Bush did, and the beat goes on.

Never trust a politician or a government. I say this not in disrespect for either but to insure vigilance; liberty and freedom composite the very ethos of what it means to be an American. Barney’s belief system abates the value of the individual in favor of the collective. His ideology embraces a nation managed by an oligarchy of selected elitist who are politically liberal-progressive, utopian in scope and by means societal, political, and economic dedicated socialist. Barney will trash American traditions of existentialism for his interpretation of the common good; Barney Frank is a dangerous man; regretfully, there are many who drink his brand of poison — one of them being the President of the United States.





OBAMA IS BLEEDING POLITICAL CAPITAL

17 08 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Declaration of Independence explicitly stated that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

After the Revolutionary War the Constitution formalized how the “just powers” of this new government would be implemented. The binding expression within the preamble, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” sets the government’s measure of empowerment.

The originals started their political philosophy with the concept, that man intrinsically had the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that government was subordinate to the will of the people. The Constitution established that the order of government was “to form a more perfect union;” and within that context government was authorized to promote the general welfare. It is under the heading of general welfare that we the people are wrestling with today’s most contentious issue: Obama Care…

There is a very motivating and politically critical battle raging upon the land: On one side of the contest, under the authority vested in the Constitution noted under “the general welfare,” is the Obama administration. The president is allied with Pelosi’s Democratic insistences on establishing a socialist health-care regime that will undoubtedly expand the size of government, cost the taxpayer’s more than estimated and enable another federal bureaucracy to perform the uniquely government brand of effective inefficiency. This wholly new add-on to the current cost of governing; naturally, comes with unions, the cost of the federal health-care coverage, and the long-tail liability of retirement pensions.

On the other side of the contest, countering “the general welfare” phrase of Obama and Pelosi’s liberals are another phrase of Constitutional empowerment, to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” It does seem blatantly clear that one cannot expand the length and width of government bureaucracy, substantially-plus increase the cost of governing, enhance the federal deficit, and cavalierly invade the heretofore private space of individual citizens; without violating a citizen’s blessing of liberty in the present and into posterity. The conflict is irreconcilable.

In my opinion Obama and company have a much more exalted goal than simply enacting single payer-universal health coverage. I do believe that Obama is a socialist. When compared to the political traditions of this country he is a political radical. He is a politician hell-bent on moving this country’s domestic policy onto the track of governmental dominance. His weaponry includes taxation, regulation, a passive press, a gullible constituency and a gift for sublime rhetorical nonsense.





STATUTORILY COMPLIANT CORRUPTION

7 08 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

Vested interest, depending on application, is in some circumstances considered as a warning sign of corruption; whereby transparency is usually associated as an indicator of ‘blue sky’: a good thing, an indicator of fairness, a factor of equity and ethical compliance. “But not all is as it seems,” says Holmes to Dr. Watson.

Covert criminal or civil breaches of the law are apparent and adjudicated by traditional standard procedures. Naturally, depending on the specific transaction, a vested interest could be cause for criminal indictment, a slap on the wrist — or nothing at all. Note the number of possible ethical violations being discussed; I use the term ‘discussed’ because Pelosi’s House of Representatives is certainly not forth rightfully deciding these ethical issues of concern. Whichever, unlawful action is apparent, observable, and procedurally a matter of course.

Contrastingly, the general public’s perception of transparency is accepted with positive preference. The popular belief is that a transparent transaction takes place in the illumination of lawful compliance; I however believe quite the contrary. The government’s definition of transparency as applied is nothing less than the artful practice of hiding the empirical facts and truth from the American people. Unbelievably, this practice of hiding is executed in plain sight. The practice of governmental transparency is insidious, willful, and implemented with purposeful intent; the effects of such are fatally dangerous to the integrity of the republic.

I call this practice of hiding the truth in plain sight “Statutorily Compliant Corruption”. This corruption is predominantly ubiquitous amongst those sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and particularly predominate amongst those officers of the court licensed to practice the law.

Statutorily compliant corruption is not particularly new. Factually, such compliance has been the knife and fork of Henry VIII; Henry, who insisted on a trial as the preliminary intermediary before a beheading. Instead of King Henry we have the Congress as the preliminary intermediary before implementing statutory compliant corruption. Instead of hacking off one’s head the penalty imposed is the curtailing of personal liberty, as well as, the right to a free enterprise that is not subject to excessive taxation and burdensome regulations.

Now, what do I mean by hiding the truth in plain sight?

Take for instance our tax laws, the regulatory agency responsible for the implementation, administration, and fulfillment of such laws cannot, with steadfast surety, advise the taxpayer on specific inquiries. This quandary is extended to the agency’s internal documentation of FAQ’s and procedure. If that is not enough of an indicator of ambiguity that is apparently concurrent with the ostensible claim of transparency the entire department’s actions are subject to the interpretation of the courts, as well as, the opinions of their internal legal department. In other words, the laws are transparent in the literal sense but not really.

There must be a reason few of the elected read the very laws they vote yea or nay; well, the reason is they can’t; they lack the ability to comprehend the very law they voted to affirm. The follow up question is, well, then why construct a law that obviously the lay person who is subject to the law cannot understand? The simple answer is, so to pass the control of interpretation to attorneys, judges and the court system instead of to the people. There is only one place of adjudication in the land that functionally day-in-and–day-out the average citizen is going to receive fair and equitable disposition: Small Claims Court. The reason is no attorneys, no jury, low cost; in other words, the persuasion is limited directly to the factual descriptive of the plaintive and defendants interpretation of events; evidence is outright, the judge asks the questions and the loser has the right of appeal. The objective in Small Claims Court is the deliverance of swift justice. In every other available legal means one is subject to the dance of expensive discovery; a procedure design by attorneys for the benefit of attorneys and justice be damned.

There was a time in the history of humankind wherein at the penalty of death (usually by fire) no bible could be translated from Latin to the language of the people, English translations were illegal. This insured the power of faithful compliance to the church; today, the lawmakers are utilizing, in plain sight, the incomprehensible language of our laws as if it was Latin.

Incomprehensive ambiguity, legalizes, conflictive babble, confusion, and legislative befuddlement, these are the tools of those elected or appointed in their quest to retain political power.

Governmentally applied transparency is nothing other than Statutorily Compliant Corruption and it is eroding the body, spirit and ethos of America’s integrity.





ET TU, BRUTE?

3 08 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

America’s structure of government was established, initially, as a check and balance utility, specifically designed to counter the inherent corruptive nature of man. As we all learned in civics class, it was the Constitution of 1787 that documented the operating basis of the existing federal government. In the beginning the signers for ratification believed, despite the endorsement of a federal system that the Constitution was a document specifically written with the explicit purpose of limiting the power of the federal government. Witnessed, rather adamantly at the time by Rode Island, wherein these islanders, as a requirement of ratification, insisted that The Bill of Rights be the Constitution’s first amendment. In other words, there was enough evidence to suggest that the Constitution was designed as an implicit imposition upon government. It is my supposition that (at the time) this covenant of implicit imposition was considered definitive, material, and interminable. As proof of my confidence in this supposition, I submit that without passage of The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) there would be no Constitution.

The original signers of the Constitution imagined the possibility of a draconian federal government; they therefore set in place certain check and balances to curtail such encroachments. But they could not have imagined the 16th amendment (individual income tax) to the Constitution. Nor could they have subsequently imagined a federal government empowered not only to tax but to distribute the bounty of such taxation to states with terms and conditions set not by congress but by regulators. These are the very same regulators who work directly for the executive branch of the federal government.

The power to tax is in unison the power to distribute; such a symbiosis is the fundamental of absolute power. All of the issues regarding the curtailing of individual rights and freedoms stem from the derivatives and collaterals associated to and from the power to tax and distribute. Taxation, distribution of what is harvested from taxation, and political power all run concurrent to a gargantuan governmental enterprise – these concurrent expressive(s) also make up the DNA of a socialistic style of governing.

If there is a constant that is formidable and steadfast in this modern world, it is the constant of change. Conversely, if there is one tangible of enduring perpetuity, the one dependable status quo, it is the lust for political power. This lust for political power is intrinsic to human nature and inherent to operating systems. Remembering that power, even the one that serves the so called common good, is to be feared, its propagation is, by nature, insidious; power is also amoral, apathetic, and – most important to understand – insatiable. Political power is a force that, while seemingly or indeed is creating good results on the one hand, often enough, is resulting in unintended consequences on the other. Political power exercised by either party is not to be trusted; such power must constantly be monitored by an independent press and looked upon with askance.

It is understood that power is a prima facie of all governments; but power is also the blunting instrument used by all politicians when items of beneficial significance or the soft sell efforts fail to achieve their goal. The struggle for the attainment and retaining of power is the contextual of history. Political power is so omnipotent that it has prompted one to lie, cheat, steal, and murder. Millions upon millions of dollars are spent on political campaigns because political power is the sublime of positioning; in contrast, the loss of political power positions the counter party as the character of ignominious dismissal.

Those in government, elected or appointed, Democrat or Republican, are interested in broadening their platform of political influence. As a consequence, most politicians, because we do not have a federal term limit, are in favor of a bigger, larger, wider, deeper government. It is therefore predetermined that government will grow; not just in size but in ambiguity, political contrivance, and duplicity.

Subsequently, by means statutory and lawful, extralegal, and piratical, those with political power will strive to subdue, restrict, or limit any and all that is perceived as an obstacle or hindrance to their exercise of power. Those outside of such power will strive to attain political power; the cycle is self-perpetuating and as ancient as the City of Ur.

The current affairs of congress are a perfect example of politicians jockeying for the power position; each surveying the possibilities, each trying to pick the winner in the upcoming horse race. Mr. Powerful has survived his most recent outcry of “stupidly” by the chicanery of hosting a beer drinking babbling moment, wherein all main characters in the Cambridge melodrama showed up for reasons unclear. The House of Representatives actually believes that the federal ‘cash for clunkers’ program is a stimulus worthy for more cash investment – two billion dollars more is the present goal. Paying citizens to drag in their cars to have the federal government (another word for taxpayer) pay them $4,500 for a car that is worth substantially less is the perfect instance of outright clinical insanity. If such a program is considered a success, why not pay people to trade their computers, bicycles, cell phones, old clothes for new; let’s have every American home owner, at the government’s expense, turn their home ‘green’.

It is all about political power; policy has been downgraded from substance to Public Relations Theater; such is motorized not by sensibility but by polls and focus groups. Therefore, the old adage of “he who has the gold rules” once again is validated; it has just been juxtaposed for comparative sameness with gold. Either a political party has it or not; either one has the gold or not; with such an absolute either or, one can truly understand why political power is to be feared.

In addition, political power will not compromise, it will not subordinate even to good sense. Political power will only abate its thrust and slash if confronted with overwhelming counter power; and such abatement will always be bloody.