Authored by William Robert Barber

Hegel’s theory of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is applicable when one views the intent of our government’s founding documents and the abrupt differing of original meaningfulness when permeated through the government’s statues, regulatory mechanics, arbitrary application, and judicial review.

Initially, (thesis) the prevailing ideal of the 1789 constitution was that government was created to act as an instrument of the people. That the original amendments to the Constitution of the United States were discerned by the signatories as literal, sacrosanct, and forevermore; that the prevailing, as well as, the prospective ideals defined the representative ethos of American governance. Soon thereafter, (antithesis) the elements that make up the ever-expanding government: lobbyist, politicians, and judges; the agencies and departments that seemingly control the legislative systems & process, elected executives, appointed apparatchiks of legalese and the embedded bureaucracy that controls the trajectory of efforts, evidence that “the people” are easily appeased by the idea that they have a vote.  

Of course the peoples’ vote at best elects a person with a promise not a solution. The threshold of actually achieving a solution often requires a consensus of the majority; wherein, in the striving to create such a consensus the sense of initial reasoning is so diluted with compromise recognition is indiscernible. Besides a stirred-to-action constituency soon abates its enthusiasm in favor of earning a living and dealing with their mundane concerns. The onus of good sense governing is on the governed; certainly, not on those that govern. Although there are instances of exception generally those that govern once elected have drank the elixir of power, pomp and circumstance; they have transformed themselves into panjandrums a coterie of self-serving ideologues who by means inexplicable exit from office much richer than when entered.

The inevitable synthesis is a reaction to the people’s perception of the deemed intolerable. I.E. the Tea Party folk’s reaction to ObamaCare and the federal deficit or the Occupy Wall Street provocateurs’ concern over the disparity of wealth and issues of social justice. When these citizens express their displeasure with the status quo positive or negative comments from governing officials usually follow an ideological line of regard. The Tea Party folks organize and look for the validation of a meaningful result whiles the Occupiers want to have their power felt in some symbolic manner. Both groups have influence, sympathizers, distracters, and misplaced emphasis; withstanding, all of the internal or operational pluses and minuses, the effects good and bad, in the finality, the process of government, the methodology of governing, will grind all good intentions into tiny granules of nothingness. In other words, historical evidence concludes that synthesis evolves into a new thesis and the Hegel prediction continues.    

Certainly, Barrack Obama was a new thesis. The standard equation of American electoral politics was shaken and discombobulated. The Obama team sold this thesis as a new political configuration. But as time witnessed, augmented by exemplar, and instanced by policies Obama is the Richard Nixon of the left.  Obama the politician is effectually politics as usual. The thesis melted into the antithesis and now utilizing the synthesis of deceit, misdirection, manipulation of subjective intangibles, trading within the “human ignorance of a complex world,” relying on the belief that all “knowledge is conjectural,” Obama the pseudo-leader, the great pretender, is selling his professorial image as the progressive that saved America from the devastation of its own capitalistic instincts.

President Obama’s analysis of what ails America is the reason our president will never find, invent, or by facilitating the advice of the all-knowing conjure a solution to this nation’s problems. The president seems to think that if only the oil, gas, and coal sector; the millionaires and billionaires, and the Obama standard of the otherwise wealthy citizens would pay more in taxes to the federal government, then the righteous Obama sense of fairness would disseminate its blessing throughout the land. Happiness would prevail, Republicans would join the Democratic Party and the independent voter would finally see the “way and the light.”

Now there is another perspective. Billions of tax dollars are regularly collected from the oil and gas sector; actually, $86 million every day, more than any other business these contributors to the federal coffers are paying for a great deal of Obama’s initiatives. One might suggests with at least some plausible degree of truthfulness that per tax contributions oil & gas paid for the Solyndras fiasco.   Exxon Mobil paid in the five years prior to 2010 paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes while it earned domestically $40.5 billion. Yes, that’s right if it was not for international business and the tax deductions afforded every other business Exxon Mobil would lose more money servicing U.S. customers.  Remember unlike green energy these are not cash handouts; if Exxon Mobil had no profits there would be no cause or ability to deduct.

Running together with confusion for President Obama is ignorance. How many American shareholders does Exxon Mobil have? Does the company pay dividends? Are the dividends used to manage retirement? How long has Exxon Mobil been paying dividends? Now our president wants to tax those dividends above today’s 15%. The president wants to increase the percentage payable to the federal government on all capital gains; so when one sells one’s house if there is a gain the homeowner is obligated to pay up to a hundred percent more to the federal government. Interesting penalty!

Obama needs to retrograde out of the investing of taxpayer funds he is not very good. The student loan business is an excellent measure of Obama’s insight into what’s best for the American taxpayer. Total student loan debt is almost $870 billion; consumer credit-card balances are $693 billion, I think the president should stick to speeches and stay out of operations.

It is frustrating for me to view the state of the nation under President Obama, sobriety has its ill-effects, thank goodness, the distilling of potatoes was perfected, and it’s very helpful. What seems so elucidate, so obvious, and plain to me is both elliptical and recondite or defiantly contrary to another. Possibly the truth evades me because I am so resolved in my opinion? Or I am oblivious to the deductive process that is apparent to those that deduce an opinion of antitheses. I just wish I had the humility to accept those last two sentences as a possibility; factually, I cannot, simply put I am right and they (the Obama faithful) are wrong.


Authored by William Robert Barber

There is no fair. Not in love, war, politics, business, or life. The idea of fair is at best an illusion, a canard, a figment of the imaginative, a chimera created to misdirect and thereby eliminate or at least limit the normative prudence of deduction. There is however the idea or ideal of fair. But in fact the concept of fair is solely a utility of persuasion. In its finality fair is the unilateral prerogative of the victor.

At worst, fair is a shiny token to assuage the effectual of reality. The rhetorical use of fair as a standard of lawfulness or cultural enhancement is most appealing within the context of theoretical deliverance. In practice, fair is always, imposed by those possessing the power to do so upon those lacking the power to deflect such an imposition. Although certainly not exclusively, but today, for the Obama administration, fair is the contrivance of politically motivated liberal progressives to advantage the reins of the federal government so to impose their mostly economic agenda. Within the wherewithal of Obama’s intellectualism the idea of what is fair does not require logical reasoning, the applicability of good sense principals, or even the ingenuity of American practicality all that is required is to turn those that have less against those that have more.

Obama and his progressives seek to gain a consensus founded on the basis of a convoluted appeal to the righteousness of their economic-social-justice while striving to persuade voters by sentiment instead of logic. The successful acceptance of such a basis automates, for the believers, a synthesis of reality, a synthesis free of proof or evidence, one that creates a societal perception of just and reasonable. This sense of fair is in fact put in place by deceivers and fraudsters as a means to a political end. The Obama progressives are initiating a rhetorical sleight of the hand purposed to enable the economics of socialism, the politics of statism, enhance the size, scope, and coercive means of government, and to deprive individual liberties in favor of the collective good.

As government grows in means, prominence, dependency and relevance to day-to-day activities there is a direct and proportional abating effect upon individual liberty and freedom. It seems as if with every new congress regardless of political persuasion individual liberty, and freedom is diminished.

President Obama is presently directly appealing to those that have less, the unions, and all those that are dependent on government funds to vote against the powerful lobbyist, millionaires, billionaires, oil companies, CEOs of major corporations, and those other Republicans whose political-economic-social justice inclinations are contrary to his self-appointed constituency, the common and downtrodden. The president’s chance for reelection is good and the idea of taxing those that meet Obama’s idea of affordability is resonating. Of course his tactics for winning the election does not even level to his definitive of fair but then he is not a believer in his own words. He knows better than that. He is simply another charlatan selling what he cannot deliver because what he is selling does not exist.

If the forty-five percent or more of Americans who pay no federal income tax can be persuaded that it is in the best interest of country and their person to vote for Obama then Obama wins. The country, along with those that have more, will lose; the country loses because the economic political ideal of liberal progressivism, just look at Europe, will not work.

As with the Wizard of Oz Obama elected or not will be proven dead-wrong; but if this president is reelected the country is on to the road of impairment and dysfunction. Nothing fair about that…