OBAMA’S UNITED NATIONS AMBITIONS

25 09 2009

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.

Advertisements




ONE AND ONE EQUALS THREE?

17 09 2009

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

9 09 2009

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

3 09 2009

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.