THE CHIEF NANNY

21 09 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do believe that one could safely say that if the Republican Party cannot beat the Democrats on this pending November election cycle then it is time to rescind, annul, revoke, dismantle, null and void the party altogether. Additionally, upon losing one would need to submit to the reality that there has been a realignment of Americanism. Clearly if the president wins, the traditional descriptive of the American rugged individualism, dynamic exceptionalism, self-reliance, and fortitude; the American that took on all challenges and rejected victimization, the American that espoused a limited constitutionally derived government is terminal.  

The Democratic Party with some influences, aid, and insist (time-to-time) from the Grand Old Party, in an attempt to entice the voting public to their favor over decades of election cycles; have successfully presented to the voters a very common hoax. This scam or con is thousands of years old; the basis of the deceit is premised on convincing voters that government intrinsically have the means to deliver a true value of service (healthcare, welfare, social security, benefits, guns & butter, etc.) and the beneficiaries will pay little to nothing. In crassly plain terms politicians have lied and presently do lie, the public willfully accepts the lying, and the two satisfied parties march on to the cadence of adherence to the oblivious.  

The most interesting segment of this entire Obama movement to the political left, to the transference of political, economic, and financial power to a government of Herculean empowerment, is that this Obama-liberal-progressive plot and plan will not work. In the meantime, this socialistic ideal is repressing individualism and replacing the once common acceptance of personal responsibility with a belief that it is the government’s obligation not the individual’s. The Obama progressive considers the “right to life” as an all inclusive entitlement–a financial-fiduciary obligation of government.  

However the Obama model will not deliver or function within the confines of a free society. Unlimited government power regardless of the government’s objective of kingly benevolence and sublime intentions will simply stymie the engines of industry and general pecuniary growth. This plan of Obama enhances cronyism and erodes the meaningfulness of the 1789 constitution.

A pessimist may conclude that it is the (expressed by their actions) purpose of the liberal progressive movement to create a reliance on government. Indeed one could find convincing evidence that such dependency is the policy-imperative of progressivism; to lure and ensnare the voting public into blissful dependency is a passionate aspiration of the Democratic Party.

In real terms the Democrats are endorsing a government of compassionate autocrats. These cadres of ‘the elected’ and ‘appointed’ are presumed to know best. They are the identified linchpin of the progressive government’s support structure. They are purposefully designed (in an artfully deceptive manner) as benign bureaucratic-wonks. But of course upon cursory discovery their function is to obey and implement the enlighten degrees of the new Plantagenet’s. These new-found Plantagenet’s take their supreme power not from the appointment as God’s direct representative on earth but from an a priori principle of moral and cognitive superiority. This presumptive discernment is self-degreed, unsubstantial, counter-empirical but organically visceral to their ideology. But “what the hell” they must know the way to societal blissfulness. They went to the highly rated schools. They rate high IQs, they know celebrities, speak French and they care for the poor and the disenfranchised.

I suppose the progressives believe that only government can protect the common man from the wealthy, the greedy corporations, the recklessness of business investors, and their army of lobbyist who work in the interest of their clients and therefore counter to the interest of the common and ordinary.

How in the world did this country move so far away from the Founders’ constitution? How could we have spent so much blood and treasure only to owe 16 trillion dollars?!?

The Mayflower Compact was the first attempt at the communalism of work and resources in the interest of the common good. That trial balloon was punctured by the reality of the human psychology; one cannot be forced to accept the failings or even the less productivity of others. Charity nevertheless is and always has been an instinctual of the independently minded citizens of America. 

Advertisements




INFORMATION!

13 09 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Every morning outfitted with bathrobe and slippers I venture out from the sanctuary of my bedroom pleasantly pleased that another day is coming my way. Prompted by addictive anticipation I can smell the illy coffee brewing even before I have flipped the switch of the coffeemaker to “on”. I audaciously scan my living area for reassurance that the world is as it was before the night fell. I instinctively seek validation to abate my early morning anxiety: Did the sun rise? Are the newspapers delivered as promised? Have I remembered to take my medications before I consume? With validations assured, coffee cup in hand, I sit to read the newspapers, check the Internet, and from time to time – depending on the previous day’s event(s) – view the television news channel. 

And then it begins… For morning reading I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. The amount of information to review and digest is voluminous. The task of reading a newspaper with clarity of understanding and sufficient retention is difficult (for me). I dare say, even the credentialed erudite would uncover perplexing ambiguities formed either by unfamiliar vocabulary, the subject’s specialties, or just the simple vagueness of contesting exactitudes and interpretive(s).

Educational institutions should offer courses in the literacy necessities of newspaper reading; maybe, as a suggestive to the college curriculum, an MBA in The Investigative Ascertainment of Newspaper Comprehension, a sort of wonks guide to reading a newspaper.

The articles in newspapers are capricious, impulsive, thoughtful, whimsical, predictable, variable, and often entertaining; issues of absolutes are rare. But these rarely stated absolutes are often indistinguishable to the layperson of common knowledge. Hyperboles are ordinary. The posting of hubristic undertakings a constant irritable; opinions aligned with undeclared ideological preference have preferential placement. It is not unknown for fiction to be portrayed as factual and the factual portrayed as fictional. More than likely, (my assumption alone) the truth of the matter sits atop the chaos but requires time and behavior to shred its shroud.

The placement of information is ubiquitous, to the extremes of persuasive opinions diverse, and seemingly more subjective than objective. The constitutionally driven concept was that free speech and a free press are a symbiosis-continuum that advantage the citizen and checks the assume power of the government. But then the government has its own means to press their message and the government does so as free of truthfulness as the common blogger. In fact the government unlike the press cannot be prosecuted for libel or slander.

In practice the free press, as with the government, and other lobbying interests are maligned by their own ideological bent, their prejudices, as well as, the shadowy influences of pecuniary benefits.

The topic of general interest in today’s headlines and subsequent contextual is the presidential election; therefore more than any other time information is flowing into misdirection, outright propaganda, and the slips and slides of pundits and advocates protecting or promoting one’s candidate.

I think that we receivers of information are challenged to decipher the wheat from the chaff, the fact from the factoids, and the illusion from the real. I also believe that the development of our own sense of inner virtuousness is a prerequisite to the forming of one’s political ideology. Self-governing within the confines of this nation’s constitution has never been easy; that’s exactly why so many of our leaders have blatantly violated the very document they are sworn to observe and uphold.

In this world of subjective and relative; this world of maybe, a world where I’m thinking about it passes as an independent position, and victimization is a clinical reason for personal failure, I would like to present my thoughts on the Democratic candidate striving for reelection: President Obama as to how he represents himself to be is instead a sham, a charlatan, and dangerous deceiver. He is not a principled politician. He lies. He dances to the tune of any alternative to plainly defending the results of his term of office. He is an incompetent manager and leader. He should not be reelected.

Now isn’t it enlightening even satisfying to define one’s opinion in absolute terms with no caveats or remissions.





AMBIGUITY, CONTRIVANCE, AND PROGRESSIVISM

8 09 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Exemplified by President Obama’s speech at the recent Democratic Convention, the governing mode of today’s politician emphasizes the rhetorical over the substantive and style over substance, wherein the promises of rainbows and butterflies take precedence over the appreciative necessity of prudence, good sense, and empirical navigation.

The adage that the people are governed by the government they deserve, is not only factual particularly in this coming election, because the two major political parties are diametric in every measure of merit, the victor will have consequential and long-tail ramifications.

The British Empire was built upon the expansive policy of convincing the country of British interest that their neighbor was a common enemy and that the neighbor of the enemy was a friend. The policy of The British Empire was to divide organic commonality and common purpose so to disable opposition to Britain’s real political intent. This mission of the British is similar to the liberal progressive Obama agenda… which simply put is: Those of you out there who have less, no worries, President Obama and his progressives are going to take from those that have (the rich) and — facilitated through government aid and assist — give it to you.

In order to sustain such a policy the ‘Obama brethren’ must discover/invent and harvest discontent; these discontented must have a target, a plausible motivation, and a realizable, even if only in the form of a Pro Forma, solution. Therefore, pretty words that dance around the pleasing sounds of fair and just, beautifully designed idealisms, and lofty objectives that ring of social perfection feed the discontented. This diet of nonsensical enables the practice of imprudent government behavior. Like printing fiat currency as if economics was a game of monopoly, the fed’s buying government issued bonds to artificially damper interest rates, and maintaining the continuum of spending more and more money because the fear is that stopping the spending and borrowing will collapse the nation’s financial wherewithal.       

Within the orb of bigger, greater, and unlimited government the plain truth of the matter has become irrelevant; in practice the truth is indistinguishable. What is relevant for the Obama administration is the retention of power. Purposefully, under this administration much more so than others, ambiguity is the knife and fork of governing. Ambiguity was originally created by the governing so to envelop the lawful ideal of plain spoken and transparency.

Today, contentiousness in the interest of litigious contrivance is the collateral damage of ambiguity. Imagine a government wherein the lawmakers concede the vitality of the law to the unelected regulator, where the governed do not understand the complex laws of the land, and where a president requesting reelection speaks for an hour and says absolutely nothing regarding a solution to obvious national problems.

This forthcoming election will define America the government, as well as Americans as exceptional people; if the president is reelected with his dismal record of achievement then clearly the collective has subdued the ethos of American individualism.  

Pretty words delivered with rhetorical style will have speared substance and the substantive through heart…