31 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Within the grand political scheme of things power beckons an insatiable appetite for more. Political power is an intoxicating elixir. Possessing such power is not a phenomenon that stands alone as if in a vacuum. Having political power is associated with social privilege, distinguished rank, unilateral respect, and financial opportunity. Collateral to the preceding benefits power is sexy. In our ubiquitous media culture political power has celebrity standing and for our politicians, political power feeds a seemingly limitless measure of narcissistically enriched tendencies for private expressions of self-deception.

With two exceptions, the first, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus who was called by Rome as Dictator to fend off an invasion by hostiles and upon his success immediately resigned his title and authority. The second is George Washington, other than those two I personally do not know of another example where power once attained was set aside for the common good.

Contrastingly, I have often heard of politicians declaring a calling (as if prompted by a sublime force) to serve. Or members of the political class declaring that in the interest of the common man (now days I guess that’s the middle class and the underclass) a politician runs for office again, and again, and then a few more times, because he or she is personally pledged to defend the interest of the underrepresented, the unprotected, and the disenfranchised.

Whatever the reasoning, be it prompted by a sincere desire to serve the public, ego gratification, or solely for a tangible personal benefit, clearly, the Congress has professional politicians who are as affixed within the bowls of government as cement to water.

Evidence has exhibited multi-examples of government corruption; as I have stated beforehand, no government can operate free of corruption. Knowing that corruption is intrinsic with any form of governing the goal of the governed is to insist on the least. As a working component of positioning the government to experience the least amount of corruption the following is essential:

1. Term limits are an absolute must.
2. The process, terms, and condition wherewith federal funds are distributed to the States must be revamped wherein State sovereignty is the highest order of merit.
3. Because of the rascals in Congress a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is mandatory.

None of these essentials has the slightest hope of passage into binding legislation unless the conservative ideology prevails in the 2012 election. The current maneuvering in Congress over extending the nation’s debt limit is a perfect example of our elected representatives kicking the can down the road. And this is if (I’m sure they will) the elected reach an accord; in other words, even their solution does not actually address the problem.

The politicians that wield power have lost their sharpness. Until just recently, they have been dulled by the established convention of political precedence. This last election, (aided immensely by the governing behavior of Obama and his progressives) brought in a new exuberance, a recommitment to traditional constitution ideals, a renewed spirit one could describe as a Tea Party ideal. It’s a let’s get back to the basics approach to governing. Hopefully, power will not abate their commitment to constitutionally administered righteousness and just maybe their ideal of limited government will prevail.


28 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Obviously, the goal of the fathers (of this republic) was to design a governing body founded on the principle that competing political elements expressed in variant policies, ideologies, and personalities, (often articulated by intense bickering) could find a forum for unfettered discourse. In the interest of achieving such a goal they created a republic that allowed and reflected, within the confines of the constitution, the means and inspiration for competing political ideals.

The principle of stimulating competing ideas is the essence of freedom and individual liberty. The governing of the republic was inextricably tethered to democratic values and such are wholly dependent on the right of discourse. The laws of this republic armed the people directly, and through their elected representatives, indirectly, in the pursuit of consensus with the efficacy of persuasion. In other words, the effectiveness of citizenry persuasion is the merit that prompts consensus; knowing, by design, that without consensus persuasion has no practical application. So to insure tolerance for and of another’s perspective the founders took into account a lawful process that permits multiple “bites at the apple” whereby failing to harness the required consensus is not necessarily fatal.

This lawful process was integrated within the constitution wherein the binding arbitrator is regular elections. In addition to elections and as a stand-by supplement to abate populous agitation there are petitions, referendums, and the specific right to recall an elected official. Matter of factually; there is a real, within the grasps, reasonable alternative for redress from the losing side of a debate for a particular consensus. Elections vent frustration, discombobulate the empowered, and empower the electorate… well, that’s the intent.

There are many differences of approach between this nation’s political parties; but the one commonality that both political parties have promoted is the expansion of the federal government. Proportional; some would evidence as disproportional to governmental expansion, is the coercive means that government has at its disposal to willfully impose it power upon the people. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice are only two examples of very intimidating governmental agencies. Since the administration of John Adams the executive branch has by means within the constitution and by means contrary to the constitution the underlying result as always been the unyielding growth of the federal government. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 were passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress to weaken the Democratic-Republican Party by restricting speech. No citizen could express in any form a scurrilous accusation against the president or congressional members; interestingly, the Vice President (Thomas Jefferson of the opposing party) was fair game. By 1802 the act was repealed or allowed to expire at term. The point being that politician(s) are not to be trusted with power; they will betray the meaningfulness of the constitution is it suits their perception of need.

For years the conduct of government was to spend more than it receives in revenue. Only through other than GAPP accounting did the Clinton administration demonstrate a surplus.

So now this run-away-with-the-people’s-cash government has run out of allotted funds. Naturally, this has happened over and over before. Indeed, each time the elected would use the forum to spat out accusatory accusations at the party in power for increasing the national debt. This phony nonsensical disingenuous plays well in the capital; that is until spending extended over 14 Trillion. Now the political parties are requiring an additional 2 trillion; that served up some attention.

The concept of competing ideas has run into a brick wall; the idea of compromise has evolved into political steadfastness. The Democrats want to find the money to keep their entitlements alive by increasing taxes; the Republicans say the problem is not one of taxing to little but spending too much. The progressives want a European style governing entity while the conservative want limited government. Legislatively there is a very real impasse. This impasse can only be settled by the 2012 election until then the party that controls one-third of government must negotiate with the party that controls two-thirds of government. Both parties have worked very hard to put this nation’s finance in its current placement; hopefully, the conservatives will get as much as possible in spending cuts with no increase in taxes. The progressives believe that fighting entitlement reform and enabling class warfare will help them in the next election… indeed, it just might.


23 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Common folks are now concerned about the nation’s sovereign debt, specifically as such concern applies to the fire-breathing monstrous interest-only service on the outstanding debt. When one couples the penalty of interest with the unsustainable, ever increasing cost of governing, rightfully the focus today is on the prudence of raising the debt ceiling without lowering the cost of governing. Of course, this cost-of-governing question has always been answered by an affirmation of “yes” with a behavior of “no”.

Historically, politicians and the appointed of all color, shape, and size have with uncontested consistency found it easier to print money and trade votes for underfunded services than to address the specific challenge. With equal consistency they have created a top-down strategy that simply results in fiscally impaired programs that knowingly, beforehand, promise more than they can fulfill. With PR fanfare they have created departmental bureaucracies that are addicted to doubling down on stupid. These very same politicians, with no hesitation or concern, bank on the public’s acceptance that its issued fiat currency is non-inflationary. All the while, thoughtlessly, in the unending pursuit of raising capital for today’s expenditure, these elected and appointed leaders have inflamed the probability of inflation when they collateralize multiple tomorrows’ tax revenue. These politicians in league with ‘others’, who perceive benefiting from such policies, are very creative; for instance, in lieu of pledging real assets, these financial genies created the securitization of air. They have spooned into the Social Security Trust Fund by replacing the cash for use by the general fund with Treasury promise to pay notes. The Federal Reserve buys Treasuries from the secondary-market with printed funds. And everyday, Fannie and Freddie borrow more monies from taxpayers to satisfy their operational needs. Does any of this sound like a fiscally sustainable system?

They have done all of this while openly competing with private enterprise. The governments of this nation have legitimized, endorsed, and benefited from the distribution of games of chance, cigarettes, and liquor, and earn at least a third on every gallon of gasoline. Let’s agree that this government of ours is the most aggressively prolific of robber barons. And now they want the right to spend more because they have spent all of 14 trillion.

The current debt limit debate has come down to Obama’s pestering for the next election, the newly elected House members sticking to their promise, and the electorates interpretive of the very ethos of what defines America. It has been said by those in the know that “the debt ceiling, means unknown in the present, will be raised. The crises as described by the media will pass.” Withstanding all of that, this next election is a defining affirmation for our country. If Obama should win this one election, liberal progressivism will be validated; the effect of his victory, at a minimum, disabling the conservative momentum. At a maximum it will push the philosophy into dormancy.

This debt limit debate is aligned with a greater purpose. Obama “the great pretender” is focused on reelection. The main stream media, on this go-around, are not so much endorsing Obama as they are in support of liberal progressivism and against the Republicans. Truthfulness takes a backseat to fear mongering, demagoguery, and whatever it takes to win the election. This time compromise will not satisfy the beast nor the paladin.


17 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Commerce is the life blood of government; without commerce, there would be no cause for a tax policy. Without commerce, government could not be funded. Therefore one would think, considering that commerce by way of their elected representatives and by the willful enjoinment of their fellow citizens (who provide the workings of commerce), the very persons who created the reasoning for and establishment of government (ostensibly, to serve the interest of the people) that this interdependent relationship (commerce & government) would be tolerantly harmonious.

Nevertheless, the relationship between government and commerce is converse to the rational of deductive thinking; indeed, in the most positive interpretive of the relationship, it is contentious. This tone of contentiousness is an accurate descriptive of a relationship that spans the scope of all manner as well as most matters of material interest. The interest of commerce is rancorously at odds with the potentates that administer the workings of government. The reason for the contentiousness is always about and connected to the amount of cash, via fees & taxation, that commerce is required by government to contribute. The government always wants more and commerce always wants less.

To witness these acrimonious actions amongst the multiple pieces and parts of government and their ongoing conflict with commerce is mind boggling. Imagine the reality; both of these entities are essential rudiments for governmental accomplishment and a profitable commerce. However if one rudiment is in constant disagreement the result is a constancy of fiscal uncertainty. The mere fact that this continuum of internal dysfunction is allowed to prevail knowing the result is fiscal uncertainty; is a baffling phenomenon-a clear contradiction of sagacity; an affront to reasonableness.

These entities, in the interest of orderliness, are obliged to rely on each other’s contribution to the whole. But instead of setting the balance of and for a respectful understanding of their respective merits while openly acknowledging their dependence on interdependence, the counter-parties step back from productive debate so that they have enough room to joust. Acting as if armed knights, each wanting to inflict a mortal blow upon the other; they each feign the moral high ground while covertly practicing statutorily compliant deceitfulness.

Commercial interests have committed civil and criminal acts. Commerce requires governess and regulation. Today somewhere within the providence of US jurisdiction some commercial entity is committing an illegal act. Clearly, government was created and is appointed by the people to secure such governess. Notwithstanding the acknowledgement of commerce’s history of unlawfulness and its willingness to violate the law of the land; government is often enough, either by simply not enforcing existing laws or for political posturing government has chosen to turn a blind eye to unfolding unlawful events. Possibly government, through the ideological prospective of a political group, the personal agenda of a powerful elected representative, a particular committee appointed to specifically promote a certain organization such as unions, a commercial interest striving to enable an advantage, possibly, herein lies the protagonist-perpetrator of extralegal actions. Whichever the case or situation there is a factoids of voluminous historical evidentiary to support the contention that government and commerce have explicitly and implicitly, often with malice of forethought acted in an unlawful manner.

Connecting commerce with and to government is laws buttressed by many, many, regulations managed by a modest number of regulators. Pressed in-between, amongst, and part of this contextual formation is attorneys, hundreds if not thousands; these attorneys are not void of forethought they have political preconceptions along with a persistent faithfulness to the hand that feeds them. This sector is identified as the administration’s bureaucracy. Commerce counters this sector with lobbyists who use their skill at persuasion to positively influence lawmakers and regulators. In addition, there are the hundreds of non elected staff, appointed, and employees of the elected all exhibiting fierce loyalty to the elected. The contesting for the political will to act is a circus that could easily match the bloodiest heavyweight bout.

At the end of it all; after available cash has been spent and all the sacrificial blood expended commerce will trounce, supersede, and triumph over, the will of government coercive intervention. Regardless, it is just a matter of time before we need to learn the lesson again. Progressivism, socialism, communism, all the isms that exist is in reality the multi-headed dragon; one must continue to cut off the head-the dragon will not die. However the lead dragon can lose the next election and be deposed.


9 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

There are a voluminous number of theological writings. Words written ostensibly by the indirect guidance of the divine, prompts from the spirit of the Lord, or as some believe by the very hand of God. Within these writings in original form, the faithful has found enough space for a differing of interpretive. This differing of meaningfulness has been the casus belli in many languages and geography. Throughout the world, these variants of interpretation have in practice acted as if to nullify one’s deductive process. The intrinsic blessing of sapient sense for cognitive logic is ignored. The sweetness of charity and the very empathy that is inherent within humanness is discarded for the sake of the irrational. The justification for fits of behavioral madness is often described as action prompted by unrequited faithfulness — “God wills it.” A faith founded on a derivative of the original such as Protestantism is to Catholicism, or a devotional loyalty premised to secure the prerogative of enforcing the original. To this very day thousands are blooded solely because of the differing of interpretation.

Now let’s take this very inclination of variant interpretive and apply it to the US Constitution: Since the ratification of the US Constitution this founding document has been besieged by the differing of interpretative(s). There are those operating within powerful governing positions (from yesteryear to today) that believe the constitution to be a living document, concluding that change as well as deviation from original intent is an inherent dynamic of the constitution. As a consequence, for example the commerce clause applies to much more than the trafficking of goods and services between states. In practice these persons, who believe that the constitution is a living document, surmise that the commerce clause means anything the government says it means.

The original longitude and latitude of this nation’s founding document purposefully stymied the power of the central government. The document imposed a federalist system with its emphasis on enumerated powers found in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution which set forth the authoritative capacity of the US Congress. Inclusive, the 10th Amendment states that all prerogatives not vested otherwise are explicitly limited to the States. Nonetheless the federal government’s coercive inclinations have made a sham of the principles, spirit, and meaningfulness of the original federalist intention. Today the States are mere vassals of their overlord the central government; each State lobbying and aggressively competing for federal cash.

The ratified thesis of the United States of America in 1789 was materially altered in 1913 with the passing of Article XVI. Wherein the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The power of the federal government to tax its citizens are draconian enough but the seriously corruptive factor; the one concern that no one in 1913 gave contemplation was the power to distribute what is collected. Distribution of taxes collected is the methodology for the blatant purchasing of political and financial influence. It is this particular that could justify the most recent federal mandate of forcing each citizen to purchase ObamaCare.

Similar to the differing of theological interpretation the constitution of 1789 has, over time experienced it’s differing of meaningfulness. Nevertheless, by means I find extraordinarily bizarre, considering the guiding principles of 1789 wherein the enunciation of individual rights was sublime, free enterprise meant a limitation of government incursion, and the idea that limited government was the raison d’être; a cherished founding premise. We are today with quite the contrary. Our bloated federal bureaucracy, the ever mounting debt and cost of governing, politicians that spend more time raising money and pursuing elections then they do legislating. And most egregious of all the omnipresent scope of central government power that effectually abates States sovereignty and functions to the detriment of individual liberty.

Well let’s see what perversion they come up with extending the debt ceiling. At least the concept of “Stop Spending” has taken root. Of course that concept has been pulled and discarded before. Do I sound pessimistic?


2 07 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Political principles reflect and respond to the particulars of the economic system; the political structure is wholly dependent on the general conceptual and specific realities of the economic system employed. Government is a means to protect voice, organize, and render the necessary surety of compliance to lawfulness. Certainly, the political issues, events, and times of Patrick Henry and George III in every economic, societal, and cultural respect is different then the identical proportional of Barrack Obama and George Soros. The mercantile system of monopolizing goods and services verses the laissez-fare on steroids reality of today’s global business has effectually changed all measurable financial/economic dynamics.

But there are two indispensable economic dynamics that has not changed: The consequential dynamic of private enterprise and the entrepreneurial behavior of risk taking. It is impossible for liberty and individual freedom to thrive much less survive without these two indispensable economic dynamics. Those societies that have moved from these economic dynamics toward socialism have done so by depriving persons of the right to be personally responsible for their financial as well as personal being. Instead of looking inwardly to solve problems the people have been programmed to look outwardly-to government. Imagine, in this country of ours, roughly, 45% of the working populous pay no personal income tax. Now if one pays nothing at all in federal income tax why would one care to vote? The nature of our progressive tax system has disengaged the citizen from concerns over the most important act a citizen could perform. And how do our liberal progressive super rich politicians respond to this, in effect, disenfranchisement for an obligation of citizenry? Well by demagoguery, by mimicking the class warfare of Lenin.

Often I have read, heard from institutional origins, and sources private, that this nation’s economic strength is anemic, feeble, and pathetically fragile. This appraisal of economic wherewithal is founded on the comparative utility of present statistics to past economic performance. Therein indicators of current financial regress is highlighted. Certain data such as home construction and sales, delinquent mortgages, bank repossessions, and home abandonment is considered critical indicators of economic status. The most critical, volatile, and political of data gathered is the unemployment percentage. This statistic is seemingly the most prominent of concerns; the government tells us the percentage is 9.1% of the eligible to work. I have heard that 9.1% translates in 14 million citizens that cannot find a job.

Many on the political left believe the fault of our recent recession rest with private enterprise and the solution is always more regulation and Keynesian economics. Conservative economics points to less regulation and getting the government out of the economic management of private business. Because of the differing economic ideology and most significantly how success is measured. There will never be a satisfactory compromise; one must dominate the other.

Republicans and Democrats voted for the stimulus of Bush and Obama; both political parties panicked and voted in TARP. They both voted in Sarbanes/Oxley, the Dodd/Frank legislation, on and on such ridiculous responses to self-created problems simply help build the next issue of concern. Too big to fail was the most recent excuse to print money and dispense; remembering fiat monies for the longest of time has had the full faith and value of the United States not gold. Since the Federal Reserve is an unaudited concern supposedly free of political influence, by or from, the value of the monies printed is mostly rated against inflation. The amount of interest our government pays to our debt holders which include foreign but most importantly domestic sources are dismissed as a someday challenge.

Since 1900 federal, state, and city governments have been overtly and covertly interceding, interjecting, and interfering in the heretofore rights of private enterprise; and as a consequence, abating the individual rights of its citizens. This constant incursion into private enterprise is eroding the two indispensable dynamics so essential for our republic. If this country is to retake its place in the world, for the benefit of everyone in the world, America must eliminate the agenda of liberal progressivism to capture and ostracize capitalism in favor of a European styled socialism.