GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE

27 10 2009

Authored by William Robert Barber

There was a time, not so long ago, not unlike our present, when this government — in cahoots with those of the elected — serviced its governing policies with an attitude of belligerent disregard. Concerns for the nation’s constituents were shelved into abeyance in favor of servicing person, special interest, or party. As a matter of commonality a nominal of the elected cheated, lied, deceived, and institutionally endorsed inhuman treatment against peoples within our borders while the many did little or nothing to right the wrong. Today those within and outside of congress speak of civility lost; many note that common courtesy is considered uncommon. I think these persons of complaint are rewriting congressional history. In congresses past, a scurrilous descriptive or two was heralded at the opposition as leisurely as spitting into a spittoon. Petty squabbles were settled with cane, knife, or gun. With little protest, Manifest Destiny prompted US policy, America outstretched its boundaries to capture its perception of destiny by means extralegal, amoral, and immoral. History is the behavioral proctor and witness of government’s insatiable appetite for more — more in size and power, more in all things measurable.

Government cannot and should never be trusted. Government is an abused instrument, utilized mostly and most proficiently by the few; while the many sit by the way side of events with their hands undecided on where to place them: On their eyes, ears, or mouth. The few are mostly attorneys. Whether elected or appointed (regarding their professional behavior), their contributing positives are in perpetual contest with their negatives. When the attorney is reincarnated into a politician, the lethal entity is formed. Coupled with no term limits and armed with the ambiguity of legalese, plus the additional weapons of befuddlement and misdirection as their side arms… citizens beware!

Although proud to be an American, one cannot think of government as anything less than an operating entity that will violate its own constitution. Such violations of the constitution have happened in the past, are happening in the present, and surely will happen in the future. The government is an instrument; that instrument is as good an adherent to constitutional standards as the people who manage its branches of governing, a free press, and the vigilance of the voting populus.

Remembering that it was that greatest of the great (until Obama) liberal presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an advocate of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the disenfranchised; nevertheless, it was he and his enabler — the government of the United States — that in WWII sequestered all Japanese Americans in camps guarded by Americans soldiers, with no right of recourse, the president and congress divested these Americans of their homes, business holdings, and tangible values.

The difference between the America of old and now is the sheer size of the American government. As a nation we can no longer tolerate petty squabbles and belligerent disregard; but most importantly, we cannot tolerate corruption. Our government is so corrupt we cannot mend nor fix it — we can only recreate.

We as a nation have lost our way; we are meandering about. Influenced by too many illusionary options, seeking short cuts our local, state, and federal governments are too busy chasing what does not exist. They have lost their legacy and their vision of where to go. More interested in promoting a tax base than prudence, governments have forfeited their presumption of virtuous naiveté. By any means draconian or ideological, government wants the tax revenue.

The battle cry of governments: Promise anything, invent any story, tell any lie — but get me the money…

Advertisements




“OBAMA IS AVERAGE” – Der Spiegel Interview w/ Charles Krauthammer

27 10 2009

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,656501,00.html





“A Comment From Ann Crouse”

25 10 2009

OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

What is the rationale of thinking regarding government run institutions? Should the government run the auto industry? Should the government run the banking industry? Should the government run the health care industry? Should the government just take over all industry?

Our founding fathers created the constitution so we could have a free society wherein the government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Somehow, we the people have created a system wherein the government controls us. We no longer adhere to the foundation of the people, by the people and for the people.

We are knocking at the door of socialism and a great number of Americans feel that the socialistic agenda is to our advantage. I recently spoke with a friend who was absolutely enthralled by what they felt was the perfect society. Everything was mandated by the government. They inferred that it was a totally stress free society, as no one had any worries. Just think, we would no longer have to work for a living. We can just sit back and let the government handle all of our woes. They could tell us when to work, play, eat, etc. What a utopia.

We must wake up from this fantasy or we will end up in a never, never land ruled by the government elite wherein the “Big Brother” is watching scenario will be our accepted standard of living rather than a fictional concept.





WHO IS DOING THE THINKING?

23 10 2009

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

17 10 2009

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

13 10 2009

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

8 10 2009

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.