THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS

26 02 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

The media has enunciated the obvious… Liberals and conservatives disagree. The insightful mainstream media goes on to declare that the depth and scope of their disagreement is profound. For emphasis, as pointed out by pundits of varying political persuasions, the competing ideologies’ incongruity prompts child-like maliciousness such as name-calling. This kind of behavior is frequently coupled with scurrilous accusations. Imagine that — so say the network medias — a discovery of the apparent is now newsworthy.

Since the Obama election the attacks by liberals and conservatives have intensified and the media are almost enthusiastically enthralled by the thrusts, jabs, and overhand rights, executed by both sides. Indeed, the behavior of some within the ranks of the elected has carved a divide of irreconcilable disrespect and the new legislative norm seems to be opinionated rancor, polarization, and stubborn disregard.

Over the last 25 years of electoral, the electorate has lost all faith in the premise that governments applies its power evenly; instead, a significant number of citizens think of their government as one of freewheeling incompetence and arrogance. Wherein politicians are tenured practitioners interested in fostering a curriculum of electability and politicking, solely for the purpose of retention. For the average American voter, the yesteryear presumption of moral integrity has been replaced with askance, frustration, and a complete displacement of the obedient fidelity.

There are multiple reasons for such a sea-change of opinion; here are a few: Governments are now enterprises, aggressively working to sell services and products to its constituency. Governing bodies are in the gambling business, inclusive of slot machines, lotto, and table games. With their team of well paid staff, they have devised the means and methods to extract fees, permits, taking licensing to new levels of distribution. It is now accepted practice to create measures to impose indirect taxation on all aspects of all transactions. Additionally, the federal government has distanced itself so far-and-away from the average Joe and Mary that it no longer acts in tempo with the community’s need. For capital’s politicians, Washington is a sublime place where those that know all things reside; these inhabitants have lost their regard of constituents’ interest, along with hearing and sight.

Withstanding the disengagement of Washington, for the political parties, compromise has run its course, no room for any give and take; the two factions are stubbornly steadfast in their beliefs. Ostensibly, respective of the reality of political gamesmanship, the liberals and conservatives are truly committed to their ideals and will not — even in the interest of the nation — abandon one more ideal in favor of a compromise.

When the liberal or conservative leadership is challenged by a material question, without hesitation, they reference their predetermined ideals or beliefs. Only after gaining access to these founding premises will they fashion a response. If the challenging question appeals to their emotion rather than to their logic, more than likely the effect will render a proportionate emotional reaction. If the material question is logic oriented, then the question either serves as a supporting tool to an inherent belief, or is discarded because it is unsupportive of a held belief.

In other words, beliefs and ideals do not die easily; indeed, to transpose an original thesis to an anti-thesis is an uphill expedition. Our ideals and beliefs are intrinsic to our persona. Thus, in order to change one’s intrinsic belief, words alone are not sufficient. Influences of empirical reality must be experienced over and over again to provoke a change in a founding ideal. Experiences that provoke charge are rare and exceptional. Therefore, one’s founding premises respective of valid evidence to the contrary is nearly intractable.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will never agree to conservative beliefs or ideals; indeed, their beliefs and ideals are the direct antithesis. For the media to expect anything other than such behavior in this volcanic emotionally charged political scenario is rather naive.

It has, for voters, come down to the simplest of questions. Where, within the scope of political variance, is your personal and national best interest served? If one believes the government is the answer/solution than the Democratic Party is your choice. If one believes in the conservative premise of limited governess, than one’s best bet is the Republican Party. After all, when the ambiguity of politics and governing is cleared away, it really comes down the simplest of terms.

Oh, vote conservative…





THE OBAMA BIDEN LEGACY OF LEFT ANGLE REMARKS

19 02 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

The deliverance by Obama and Biden that the stimulus is and was a good thing, inclusive of other such instances of delusional disingenuousness, has finally pushed me into wondering if these guys have any hold whatsoever on even a semblance of reality. Frankly, I thought that Biden was more or less acting out of fidelity to the President and that Obama was adhering to his political ideology. But after the continuum of empirical evidence that blatantly contradicts the words that leave their mouths, I am now questioning their competence.

This mind-numbing questioning of mine is a burden of recent and now intense encumbrance. My concern is directly pointed to the administration’s veracity. I have cause to doubt the administration’s comprehension of clear and relevant economic, as well as political, events. My wonderment is now at a crescendo causing me some bafflement and confusion. The most recent actions and supporting rhetoric of Obama leadership is counter intuitive, bordering on downright stupid.

Logical deduction normally discerns the distinction of success or failure; a leader, (normally) when confronted with any material objective, changes the strategy or tactic if failure is the prevailing result. Indeed, followers need to believe in the leader’s ability to discern and adjust the effort if such preceding effort does not produce the desired result. But not this president or his team of political/economic advisors: Instead, they double down on their insistence that either the message was not delivered succinctly or that a variant of counter-parties distorted the truth of their appeal.

I am close to diagnosing the Obama administration with a not-so-rare, but nevertheless lethal, behavioral disease, known as “Bataille de Verdun”; the first know exposure was in 1916. Before it was contained it had caused an estimated 700,000 casualties.  It seemed that British soldiers could not adapt their traditional tactics to the new technology. Therefore, despite the deadly effect of German machine gun fire, one battalion after another repeated the linear shoulder-to-shoulder charge — respective of the utter failure of advancement. Thousands of warriors stepped toe-to-toe without changing their tactics; obviously, the result was a devastating loss of human life. I conclude that the flower of the British Empire was lost on the fields of Verdun. Considering Obama’s first year in office and his reluctance to stop, reevaluate, and change so to adapt to a new empirical reality, he is marching shoulder-to-shoulder in linear formation, pushing forward his all but soundly rejected agenda.

The Obama government actually does much more than simply doubling down on their precedence. Actually, for the political purpose of prevailing, they are participating in a Kabuki dance of their own design. They are choreographing this dance minute-by-minute and day-to-day. There is little time for rehearsal and as a result a certain amount of disagreement among the dancers is evident. The administration’s dance is calculated to win the debate. To forthrightly distort the truth by means non-explicit or explicit is just the price of winning. Confederating with those of media simpatico, the Obama staff purposefully misdirects the message with half-truths, almost the truth, and implicit exaggerations. The Obama advisors lamely excuse their original forecast of limiting unemployment to 8% with the shrug that the recession was much harsher than understood at the time. Of course the old (wearing thin) stand by of blaming George Bush for everything is still high on their list of the reasons for their failures.

Recently, Biden took arrogant disregard to a new level by unabashedly affirming to an international television audience that the success in Iraq was a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s example of sound-positive governmental stewardship.  For such idiocy in the face of evidence to the contrary Vice-President Biden deserves the Medal of Audacious Impertinence.

When it suits them they are harbingers, mind-readers, and the very essence of viable interconnectedness in understanding the rational means to a justifiable end. They are the a priori of super-intelligence as to resolving the nation’s economic, social, fiscal, and foreign policy issues. Otherwise, if things don’t go as forecasted, they are the innocent provocateurs of justice, governmental transparency, moral righteousness, and the very ethos of Americana tradition. Yes, they have a super majority in the House and until Mr. Brown’s victory, controlled the Senate; but still, in the face of their super-intelligence, the Obama democrats are stymied by a Republican party of no.

It is a hard cruel world for Obama and his band of innocent provocateurs.





THE PEOPLE’S INQUIRY

15 02 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

Office holding politicians, particularly the Democrats, cannot comprehend the prevailing message: The American people are angrily frustrated with the leadership, as well as followship of congress.  The citizenry are resentful of this ‘I know better’ elitist approach by the elected to the governing of the people. Additionally, disingenuousness, lies, distortions, and purposeful, politically motivated directives aimed to distort the truth for the sake of the moment also add wood to the fire of governmental distrust.

The people want the truth — the good, the bad, and the ugly truth. These are the wishes of the people. Instead, the Obama administration, Pelosi’s House majority, and Reid’s Senate majority insist on managing the Democrat-led government by presuming that the people are ignorant of what’s good for them; therefore, enlightenment of the masses is the obligation of every liberal progressive. After all, only through such practice can those who know and understand less be lead by those who understand so much more.

The very fact that political leadership for years — not just at the federal level — have managed to pay Paul with Henry’s money (the very definition of a Ponzi scheme); such behavior is a testimony of not simply pure unadulterated governmental mismanagement, but also the perfect example of what happens when constituents take their eye off the ball of political involvement.

The goal is not about trusting government; indeed, a sound responsive populous should never trust government. Nor is trust a factor in government transactions or affairs; this is particularly true as to the elected. Trust is not in the dictionary of political or governmental intercourse. However, mistrust is the guiding line of reason when auditing all aspects of governing.

No person living today, as with those persons of the past, has the constancy of either righteousness or truthfulness. Every person is blinded by one’s own predetermination of what is right or correct. Wisdom is only accurately measured in arrears. We are all guessers. The result of deductive logic is only as reliable as the veracity of the information imputed.

When legislation is rushed, it is only prudent to believe that mistakes will be made. So why rush legislation? Well, we all, despite our presumption of ignorance, know why legislation is rushed. Either because the congress is changing the name of an airport, or because the measure debated is politically significant and one party or the other would rather not stand the test of scrutiny.

I do believe that the American people have had their full of politics as usual. Certainly, congressional nonsense has risen to the top of the glass and has spilled over onto the floor. Enough of the useless political bickering (by the elected and the wannabe elected); the country is financially busted. It is time to spread the burden of sustaining the cost of governing, not emphasizing the spread of wealth. It is time to objectively, vigorously, lower the cost of governing at every level of government.

Remember, the author of “Utopia” lost his head…





MR. PRESIDENT, STEP AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY

7 02 2010

Authored by Andy Matthews   —   February 1, 2010

“The country has had enough of your fixing, thank you”.

The conventional wisdom has it that President Obama’s most egregious error during his first year in office was his decision to focus the bulk of his attention on health care, rather than on “fixing” the economy.

“At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second,” conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, “the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about.”

Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, he of Cornhusker Kickback infamy, lamented to the Fremont Tribune that “it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy.”

This misplacement of priorities, we are told, explains the precipitous drop in the president’s poll numbers over the past year. Now, a course correction is needed if Obama wants to a) salvage what’s left of his presidency, and b) do right by the country.

The White House got the message. In his State of the Union speech last week, the president told the nation that “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.” Obama referred to “jobs” 26 times in his speech, more than twice as often as health care or health insurance.

And so it’s agreed: The administration has seen the error of its ways, and from now on, fixing the economy and creating jobs will be Priority One for Team Obama.

Now, not to rain on this fun, bi-partisan agree-a-thon, but isn’t this just about the worst thing we could ask for right now?

If memory serves, the guy who’s telling us he’s now gearing up to “fix” the economy is the same guy who, way back in the year 2009, gave us the historically massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was supposed to … fix the economy.

For those who missed it, Obama’s first take at playing economic Mr. Fix-it didn’t exactly work out as we were told it would. That $787 billion “stimulus” package bought us double-digit unemployment and deficits as far as the eye can see, but that’s about it. Should Americans really be salivating for another helping? Didn’t this guy do enough damage the first time?

Actually, the stimulus debacle did produce two things of enormous value: a teachable moment regarding the administration’s sheer ignorance of all things economic, and the opportunity to watch modern-day liberalism fail so completely and publicly that it may now have been discredited for a generation.

The way to jumpstart a sluggish economy — as anyone who didn’t sleep through the entire 20th Century understands — is to remove governmental barriers to private-sector-driven economic growth. That this point is either entirely lost on or irrelevant to the administration becomes clear when one considers that the stimulus package did the exact opposite: It grew government at the expense of the private sector. The dreadful results were all too predictable. And the ideological rigidity behind the stimulus is exactly what ensures that future attempts by this administration to address our economic challenges will prove no more effective. The only policy solutions with any real hope of succeeding are, by default, kept off the table.

So to say that Obama would have enjoyed a more successful first year had he focused more on the economy misses the point. Any president who so fundamentally misunderstands the reasons why some societies prosper while others remain stagnant is predestined to fail on economic matters. Given this president’s faith in government intervention as the necessary starting point for solving all of society’s problems, anything he touched in the economic realm was destined to go badly — and anything he touches in the future will meet a similar fate. In short, we’ve seen what “focusing on the economy” means to this crowd. And it ain’t pretty. The State of the Union speech — chock full of ideas for new, big-spending initiatives — only confirmed the President’s commitment to his failed strategy.

And so when the president tells us he’s now shifting his focus to the economy, there’s only one serious way to take it: as a threat.

To be sure, President Obama will, through this recalibration, score some short-term political points. By shifting his emphasis to jobs and the economy, he is sending a message to Americans that is sure to be warmly received: Your priorities are my priorities.

But the President’s dogmatic commitment to his statist ideology gives the ending away. Barring a complete reversal of his philosophical bearings, we know that his next attempt to “fix” the economy — and the one after that, and the one after that — will involve increasing the size and scope of government while choking the private sector. As night follows day, things will again get worse, not better.

And the public will begin to long for the days when the president was bogged down in his ill-fated attempt to reform health care.

Andy Matthews is vice president for operations and communications at the Nevada Policy Research Institute.