IN MEMORIAM

30 05 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

There has sprouted up a stylish must-do, a societal nicety, a gesture that seems to beget other gestures of the identical meaningfulness, and frankly, juxtaposed with a bit of simpatico I do understand the why fore. Nevertheless, I take issue with its explicit and implicit implications.

Firstly, I best reveal the irritant: “Thank you for your service…” are the words uttered as they reach out either by hand or sentiment to congratulate the service member or former member. Normally, such a thank is extended from those fellow citizens that have not (for whatever reason) served in the armed forces.

Surely, by now the reader is befuddled by my peeve and a bit perplexed as to why. The answer is quite direct: Undertaking service to my country is nothing for my fellow citizens to thank me for. Service is an obligatory of citizenship and a common virtue that does not warrant adulation. Certainly, I am not suggesting that a citizen of this country must or even should serve in the armed forces — not at all; I am suggesting that if my fellow citizens believe that common virtue is extra-ordinary and deserves special attention, then the common denomination of virtue is directly abated.

I served the interest of my nation state in times of peace as well as war; I am proud to be a United States Marine. Withstanding, I am just as proud of those fellow citizens — whether they served in the armed forces or not — that pay their taxes, vote, harmoniously keep their families together, recognize and maintain their fidelity to community, obey the laws, and purposefully strive to strengthen the wherewithal of not only American values but also note their obligation to express responsibility for humankind.

This nation functions by fields and networks of symbiosis; one feeds upon and relies upon the other. Respective of the forces of counter, of the anti, and the converse we are all tied together in one effort. We are bound together as dependants and interdependent. Each individual is important to the whole. Indeed it is the idea of an individual’s value the make us so exceptional a nation.

Soldiers serve and like the police, fire, and many, many, other professions that are so very critical even dangerous they make their contribution. But I think, in the interest of every citizen, that the common denomination of citizenship should be extraordinarily high.

For me, my service was an obligation and a privilege; my countrymen owe me absolutely nothing, not even a thank you. I owe my country everything…for me it is an honor to call myself an American.

Advertisements




THOSE PROGRESSIVES AND THEIR MISUNDERSTANDINGS

23 05 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do believe a measurable certain of liberal-progressive politicians, economist, ideologues, bureaucratic wonks, inclusive of that ever contrarian ten percent, and those that habituate the mind-set of the never rational, creatively naïve, super-liberal, apparatchik segment of the eligible to vote, not only miss the targeted concerns of conservative contemplation; I believe their inductive line for seeking comprehension of conservative thought aimlessly misses the renowned side of the barn.

How is one to understand the meaningfulness of an opposing point of view if prospective contemplation is impossible? I would find it difficult to suppose that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Read, or any of the other liberal progressives that dominate the Democratic Party is acting out their political beliefs for any other reason than their ideals. Ideals that, when implemented, will induce policies so to create their idea of a better America. Factually, it is this pure determination of belief that makes liberal progressives so very dangerous to the conservative methodology of governing.

I suppose that when surveying the motivation of liberal progressives there is another angle of analysis. Could it simply be that these politicians are gamming the system? That they are acting out their wherewithal in the interest of self; even at the detriment to the nation, its people, and the constitution?

I do believe the liberal progressives actually believe in their boneheaded political ideals; interestingly, to reveal the depth of the irreconcilable divide between these highly competitive ideological beliefs, boneheaded is the exactness of how a liberal progressive would respond to the ideals of a conservative. Well, the progressives would run through their inventory of scurrilous accusations first emphasizing conservative alignment with the wealthy to the disadvantage of the middle class. Then they could either select boneheaded or some synonym of equal descriptive.

Withstanding the liberals’ quixotic adherents to progressive doctrine and a conservative’s adamant disagreement with such; one of the veracious reasons for the common or lay progressive’s misunderstanding of conservative thought is premised on a progressive’s belief that conservative policies represent the interest of greedy corporate mongers. These mongers represent a wealthy class whose sole and determined design is profit at all cost. Now clearly, noting that all or most of the leadership of the progressive political movements are multimillionaires, the leadership of the political left and liberal progressive ideology knows that such generalities are void of evidence. But such misdirection of truth, founded on propaganda, generates predeterminations amongst the peoples that have no validity. Nevertheless, at every opportunity that is the distinction progressive politicians and their handlers enthusiastically describe to their voting base.

A recent example is suggesting that only the Republicans approve of “big-oil companies” receiving tax incentives; such suggestions are not only simply untrue; from a prospective of equal measure no mention is made of subsidies to “green energy” companies who pay no corporate taxes whatsoever.

Such factoids of liberal progressive action of slanting the truth for political purpose stimulates a demagoguery enriched bias (against conservative ideals) that has no basis of evidence. The result is a determined evasion of truthfulness. This irresponsible manipulation of facts is engineered (by the ideologues) to decouple any pathos, possibly even interest, for conservative political perspectives.

Historical documentation will evidence that evil doings, evil doers, and evil purposefulness has no persistent-definable ideological or governmental genealogical particular. In other words, all political persuasions, societies, cultures, governments, organizations, public or private corporations, religions, and persons could bear the perchance for evilness. One does not need to be a corporate entity to act out evilness; Catholic priest have practiced evil. So have politicians of every political-ideological interpretive.

It is the policies that create the evil, as well as, the stupid. Policies are formed and derived in large part by a particular political-economic-social ideology.

Obama’s most recent portentous foreign policy pronouncement regarding Israel, suggesting that Israel our only ally in the Middle East, retrograde back to the 1967 borders is an example of his ideology of naiveté nearing childlike silliness. It is an absurdity to believe that the Palestinians, after having chosen Hamas, therefore choosing the ‘Hamas doctrine’ for the destruction of Israel verses a peaceful accommodation, would even accept, if given the 1967 border, Israel’s right to exist. Only a silly, naïve, liberal progressive contrarian, would even place those words inside of a speech to the world-at-large.

This recently delivered foreign policy pronouncement, his original pronouncement in Egypt; his leading from the rear strategy in Libya; along with his philosopher-king methodology of governing, all compliment and support his ideological beliefs and inclinations that only via the unlimited coercion of government can the progressive brand of Obama’s sense of fairness settle into the law-of-the-land.

This guy has got to go…





THE SOLUTION FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

15 05 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

The constituents of this nation of ours are crying out for congressional action regarding illegal immigration and border security. Therefore, in an effort to relieve congress of an obligation it will not address I have decided to solve the US border/immigration problem with our neighbor to the South. Sound a little hubris? Well, if President Obama with little regard for truthfulness willfully exaggerates his administration’s successes along the border and make fun of those constituents that populate the border as never going to be satisfied no matter if he constructs a moat inhabited with alligators. Then surely I can put forward a ‘new approach’ or solution to a seemingly everlasting problem.

What Spanish speaking country financially benefits from its willful albeit illegal exportation of it citizens into the United States? That’s about as hard a question as who is buried in Grant’s tomb.

Well, clearly Mexico the sovereign nation benefits, and obviously, Mexicans benefit, if not, multimillions over these many, many, years would not trek north. The very fact that Mexican citizens, seeking financial surety and all of its derivatives must leave their home, by usually dangerous and certainly illegal measures, is a negative indictment of the Mexican government’s veracity of governing competence.

Multi-millions of US Dollars are sent by illegal Mexican immigrates to Mexican banks for a repatriation service fee. All of this income flowing into Mexico is prompted solely by the successful illegal export of its citizens into America. This exportation of Mexican citizens are premeditated, willful, contrived, and supported with a wink and a nod by the Mexican government and its private affiliates.

Hence it is not the individual alone that is liable for breaching US immigration law. The government of Mexico is the real culpable indispensable accomplice.

Therefore, for conspiring and committing a breach of US law it is the Mexican government in addition to the individual Mexican that is the violator. This ameliorated new approach (of mine) to viewing an old problem once thoughtfully contemplated reveals itself as axiomatic and sensible. The governing Mexican administrations, both present and past, for years have been aiding and abetting the willful violation of US law. Mexico is the prime offender; and is, consequently, the first cause of liability.

Let me be absolutely clear, I am stating, unequivocally, that the Mexican government is directly liable for its citizens’ contravention of US immigration laws.

Ok, well, so what! The “so what” is a strategic realignment not just of culpability but of subsequent judicial recourse. Nevertheless, the United States can offer to Mexico a means to end their participation in breaching US immigration law or face the consequences of lawful recourse. Interestingly, the elimination of the problem is not only costless but readily implemental.

The USA offers to open its borders by issuing 6-months work permits, with some obvious restrictions, terms, and conditions to all able boded Mexicans. The work permits are authorized by the federal government but issued for a fee by the particular state the worker agrees to work within. Any violations of the covenants by the individual will have a financial penalty including deportation and permanent exclusion. The secondary financial guarantor of this transaction is the Mexican government. All applicable taxes due are collected; any none applicable taxes (possibly social security) are exempt.

Any and all “paths to citizenship” remain within current US law. Those illegal persons already within the USA must apply for year-to-year work Visas or face deportation. For those who have resided in the country for more than 5-years, speak English or will attend a formal sponsoring school to learn the language and have no criminal record (standard to be noted) will be eligible for a very specifically issued resident status. Special attention will be dedicated to those children brought by their parents illegally into the United States when they were under preschool age and have been attending an academic program throughout their obligatory schooling period.

For a permanent solution to this illegal immigration problem:

If the Mexican government would permit US firms the right of majority ownership in Mexican domiciled business, private property, and adopts an equal status for investment in Mexico as the US affords to Mexicans in the United States. In less than a generation at the high and within ten years at the low, citizens of Mexico will have less cause to legal or illegally live and work in the United States because US firms with minority owned partners will blossom in Mexico. The border will be gleefully overrun by a global tourist boom, businesspersons, and investors.

I am very skeptical that this permanent solution will ever take place but I do believe by holding the Mexican government legally and financially accountable for their citizens are the proper approach to the issue of present concern.

However, Mexico is now and has been since its inception a nation fearful of Yankee dominance. After losing Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona to the United States plus being invaded by US forces they certainly have a good cause for fearfulness. Notwithstanding the other urgent drug-gangster mayhem that is perverting the normalcy of transaction in Mexico our neighbors to the South do have a deep-seated latent problem with corruption at almost every cultural, civil, and governmental level.

In the interest of brevity I have dumb down my solution to the single initiative of holding the Mexican government lawfully responsible for the immigration problem. There is so much more to my solution…any questions or request for more detail just send me a comment.





SOME PERSONAL THOUGHTS

12 05 2011

Authored by William Barber

The keeper of the flame is a designation once held by a person of high regard. No longer is the maker of weapons testing one tree’s strength of wood against another. For Americans, food and water are no longer the day’s most significant pursuit.

In the present, the claim is that we can be comforted that our duly elected leaders and supportive institutions have established the agreed upon societal norms; hence, we citizens are regulated by laws. For example, similar to all of the nation’s laws, the tax law has requirements of adherence with penalties for non adherence. Every citizen must comply with the established law. Now the law is complicated. So our leaders and institutions present lawyers and accountants to aid and assist the citizens’ requirement of lawful adherence. Naturally, a common person must pay these licensed by the state professionals that are specifically enlightened and licensed by the state institutions…

Politics is another complicated endeavor so we have politicians and news reporting sources to help us common understand the comings, goings, and makings thereof. In other words, the theory is that if one can listen, see, and read the information is at hand.

However, offerings of information in today’s globally enriched hypermedia environment is not only voluminous in scope, variance, and particulars the available sum is overwhelming. Additionally, because information is susceptible to the whimsical discretion of relevance and the unpredictably of forthcoming events; it must be understood by all seekers of truthfulness that the truth of the matter maybe too illusive to capture. Nevertheless, often after only a snap shot of exposure one’s eye has transferred the intended message to one’s brain and moved on; the media have completed its mission. Notwithstanding the after for mentioned, after one’s initial reading, listening, or visual of the information there is, seemingly, a never-ending perchance of the media for inaccuracy. Hence one must arm oneself with (in order to satisfy a reasonable expectation of truthfulness) the parity of contrasting media means, along with the utility of prudent sensibility in the hopes of reaching a sense of subject clarity.

Between the gathering and comprehension of information one is easily dazzled (if not outright befuddled) by the number of available sources, noting the deficiency of time between comprehending the old while keeping abreast of the new; conclusively, the idea that one could access all the information offerings are impossible. Therefore the concept of investigative parity will always fall short of available sources; there is no doubt that in today’s media environment the basis of and for judgment of issues and concerns is derived from repetitive scanning.

Through all these offerings of 24/7 multimedia information; (print, oral, and visual) one ingests such with a bellyful of askance. One understands that because of the sources’ ideological persuasion, one’s personal favorable which applies to the probable distortion of meaning both for the originator of information as well as the recipient, the possibility of pecuniary interest, or some political agenda… truthfulness is often under represented. Indeed, as a condition of thematic substance the truth of the matter expressed could be purposefully excluded. Legislation such as healthcare, the new financial reform act put forward by elected representatives Dodd and Frank, or issues such as raising the national debt, to the average citizen (and probably over half of those who voted for the legislation) these issues require more than simple contemplation to intellectually absorb. The methodology of processing such foreign to the common information is presented as if the contextual was a chapter within a mystery novel. With multi-plots wrapped snuggly within an enigma or misdirected by some rhetorical vestige of truthfulness into, ultimately, some soon to be forgotten, metaphoric terra of oblivion. If such fuzziness is not sufficient confusion for Joe citizen; there are latent ambiguities, stirred by contrarian’s that are constantly redefining the factual. And then of course there is humankind’s stubborn regard for factoids that repress contradictory evidence. Writing, as well as, reading and interpreting/discovering the truth of the matter is difficult achievements.

To layer another coat of confusion to one’s goal of gaining access to the facts of any material particular just think of the number of interpreters of circumstance and events the public is regularly weathered-by: Experts from think-tanks, wonks from the sector of concern, pundits of every persuasion, historians, political strategist, writers, journalist, former politicians, television hosts, celebrities of every inclination, comedic programming and of course comics who have decided that they have insightfulness. Long gone are the days when the tribe member went to seek the advice of the wise man or some sage-like council of elders.

Data gathers spew out computations founded on accepted criteria; when comparing data gather’s computations with another the result is indefinite definitive’s. Such contradictions are inherent within the particulars, variances, and wherewithal of established criteria. Plus, most importantly, because of the constant effect of humanness and its subjective influence contrasting ideological perspectives emerge and forever forsaken the purity of absolute clarity. After all is said and disseminated, with exceptions in the minority, the truth of the matters contemplated seems to rest solely, regardless of the underlying evidence, with the believer’s inclination to believe in what is intrinsic to one’s predetermined beliefs instead of what is presented.

Considering the constant driving impact of an all-intrusive media one must have a firm grip on one’s political beliefs because from that starting point all other critical issues and concerns stem.

I believe that everyone should pay federal income taxes; indeed, not to pay is a disenfranchisement of citizenry-obligation. Besides not to pay taxes simply means some politicians has purchased one’s vote. Respective of outcome limited government protects individual freedom and the direct opposite is true by the continued endorsement of unlimited government. I am a firm believer in “state’s rights” versus the constant ingress of state sovereignty by the federal government. I do absolutely endorse a strong armed force; I do not want to cede America’s super power status. I do not trust in the United Nations nor do I blindly trust in Russia’s or China’s good intentions. The world has been and will always be a hostile environment. I believe in a capitalistic economy. That laissez-faire policy is intrinsic to limited government and personal liberties.

I could go on…





PAST IS PROLOGUE AND SUCH IS PLAINLY STUPID

1 05 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

By observation it seems that one’s obligatory as an elected official is to communicate. Naturally the communicative effort (preformed by the elected) is encouraged — not wholly, but substantively — to retention of office, raising money for the next election, or to explain a particular vote or policy position. The supposition of all of this communicating is founded on the premise that talking with and listening to the concerns of the constituency is fundamental to the duty of an elective representative. Of course the basis of this supposition is premised on the belief that the elected representative actually writes the thesis of law proposed and that prior to a vote on all legislation the elected has read and comprehended before voting. But now we all know that respective of the representative’s obligatory responsibility to citizen and country the reality of such sworn duty is mythological; the congress has long ago replaced reality with the surreal.

I note the descriptive “surreal” because where else in this world, except politics, does gamesmanship triumph over sensibility? Where else does oratory coupled with handsomeness frequently overwhelm the viability of prudent deduction? Is there another local other than congress wherein corrupting the intended purposefulness of impartial reason considered good politics? Only within the surreal of political affairs are a contrarian who has not produced an alternative solution considered a heroic contributor. Is there another being of reference where the founding document of this nation is dismissed as irrelevant or knowingly subverted by the unilateral decision of justices instead of adhering to the constitutional requirement of an amendment? Where else does the meaningfulness of a politician’s declaration of an anticipated result willfully subordinate to some arcane practice called the legislative process. Thus only after a bill is voted into law do the details emerge? Although practiced, (in my opinion) extra legally, by both political parties, this Obama administration has, with blatant, unprecedented, prejudicially derived ideological resolve, allowed the appointed, staff, and the employed of government agencies and departments to, in real terms, control the legislative and regulatory mechanics of this government’s governing operatives. Is there another metropolis of political wherewithal that could possibly, effectively, compete with the entrenched culture of today’s state bureaucracy?

“Well yes,” declares the Rook to the Pawn. “Please observe,” the Rook points out, “there are hundreds of thousands of business enterprises, as well as, literally hundreds of government owned or controlled entities whose life’s blood is dependent on the gargantuan, coercive, process encumbered, counter-sensible in operational scope, wasteful in sum, that constitute the means to create the ethos that powers this federal government.”

“Are suggesting, Mr. Rook that there is conspiratorial symbioses between those that support the resources to the government, the elected, and non-elected that manage government?”

“Hell yes,” the Rook replies. “It is not just the entities I mentioned previously. Political parties and their politicians buy votes.”

“Now wait a minute,” the Pawn cautions. “I know for a fact that a contender seeking political office is legally prohibited from buying votes.”

The Rook responds. “Dear Mr. Pawn you are naïve.”

“I’m naïve! Well, give me an example in the current era where a politician buys votes;” the Pawn exclaims.

The Rook points out, “in the election of ’08 Obama promised all citizens that paid no federal income taxes up to $1,000.00 if elected. That’s one example; another is unions that represent public employees. They pay millions upon millions of dollars into an electoral campaign for predominately Democrats that eventually they will be sitting across the negotiating table…restructuring pay and benefits for their members. Is that not a backhanded method of buying votes?”

Our America has lost its way…possibly, because of our financial success we have effectually gotten comfortable with the government doing all the thinking for us. We Americans have a difficult time with differentiating reality from the surreal; we are susceptible to the advertisement, that value could be free. That voting to take from those who have more so to give it to those who have less is just fine. And that trusting the government to perform is actually mitigating the risk of self-reliance. Millions of Americans are feeding off the bounty of multimillions of Americans. Clearly, no matter one’s preference of legitimately competing ideologies, there is a number, a percentage of taxes and fees that are excessive. What we are really discussing is that number, that percentage; surely, the rational and reasonable will find a solution to such a discussion.

But if no solution is forthcoming from an agreement; reality will make that decision for us…