THIS ELECTION DEFINES AMERICA

27 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

About a hundred years ago the shift from the constitutional principles of federalism proceeded by the diminishment of the once strongly held belief in an individual’s sovereign self-reliance altered this nation’s populous from the ethos of rugged individualism to one of dependency. This altered attitude was tethered (by both majority parties) to an infatuation with the promises of progressivism — at the time considered a mild-moderate sort of socialism. It was during this initial period of progressive flirtation that the meaningfulness of the Commerce Act was reinterpreted and expanded to include, as President Wilson emphasized, “to comprehend the demands of social justice.”

From early 1900’s onward the diminishment of the heretofore American ethos has effectually abated, even misconstrued the traditional virtue and cultural-prominence of American individualism; indeed, in the present progressives think of federalism and existentialism as quaint remembrances of a bucolic and unsophisticated America.

When the people renounced the spirit of Patrick Henry’s declaration of liberty and placed their fate and fortune into the hands of ‘those who know best.’ As exampled by the present cadre of policy wonks, the academia enriched know-it-alls, progressive elitists, and those elected representatives who are determined to retain power till death. Before too long the federal government assumed (with the blessings of the people) the assumptive role as the inclusive source of coercive omnipotence. The diminishment of American individual and cultural traditions were forever replaced and usurped with the direct help of the judiciary aided by a federal government composite that presented itself as the supreme entity of bureaucratic preeminence. The popular acceptance of an ever-growing system of governing bureaucracy necessitated the only compatible symbiosis: Centralized authority. This is the very type of governing authority that adamantly opposes and is intrinsically hostile to the constitutional premise of federalism.   

The federal government has successfully quieted the original interpretation of the constitution and in doing so preserved its coercive omnipotence of federal authority. Nonetheless, it’s, doing business as, a “nanny state,” does have far reaching societal implications. The “nanny State” inherently must raise and re-raise expectations to those who have less. Contrastingly, those that have more, the very ones that the government relies on to pay the taxes to satisfy those who have less counter the “nanny State” distribution of wealth by not investing capital. The result of less capital investment means real opportunity for employment by those who have less-lessens.  Anxiety by both groups grow; the elected panic and print more money. Inflation is inevitably the result devastating those that have less.

Speculatively, would the progressive politician then appeal to those that have less for the nationalization of key resources?  

In today’s election environment, a significant percentage of today’s voters are actually contemplating their personal economic viability and linking their vote on to the Democratic Party’s promise (as if more money is simply a matter of enhance taxation) of more government support, aid, and or cash equivalence. As if an addiction there are a number of Americans that rely on a daily injection of government assistance. We Americans have become so dependent on government doing all the thinking “we the people” have a hard time functioning as self-sufficient peoples.

Is it possible, that the American people might go into withdrawal symptoms that mimic heroin addiction? A real time example of a withdrawal symptom is the horrific dynamics playing out in Greece. The Greek peoples’ reaction to fiscal austerity was prompted by the numbing effectual of a “nanny State’s” legacy of corruptive governance.  Will Americans burn down and destroy private and public property when those who are promised more are, in some finality real or imagined, denied their more?

The election 2012 is a pivotal benchmark; the result will be a definitive measure of American’s sense of common sensibility. If Obama’s dismal presidential record is reelected to another four years then the coalition of special interest: Unions, those that pay no federal income tax, the ethnic voters, youth, progressive ideologues, and the abundantly naive have successfully put the round into the square.

I voted yesterday, my voice was registered and counted… 





THE TRUTH OF IT

22 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

The methodology of achieving dynamic governmental growth sponsored and applied by this country’s congresses and executive leadership, particularly after the Civil War and on to the early progressive era of 1900 could not have linked nor anticipated the fiscal calamity of 2008-2012 to its progressive political indoctrination and implementation. During this “golden age of progressive thought” there were no concerns amongst the populous that the federal government was exceeding its constitutional mandate, no one was worried that the feds would spend excessively more than the tax revenue provided, nor did anyone note the disproportional erosion of individual liberty and freedom as the power of the federal government exponentially grew upon acquiring the right to tax its citizenry.  

Indeed the discussions amongst the years 1910-1913 that led to the 16th amendment were considered (by the progressives & a large percentage of the population) the appropriate fiscal vehicle; the fair and equitable pecuniary means for which to extend the federal government’s income. This federal need for income was explained as “funds necessary to enact those certain (promised by the elected) programs, departments, and agencies that would benefit the average American”. No one anticipated that the right to tax individual Americans would convolute into the multitude of corrupted influences that would result in empowering the federal government into a jurisprudentially approved presence of omnipotent coercive dominance on every individual American not only in America but on every American throughout the world.  

In order for our federal government to arrive at its present berth of enigmatic bureaucratic complexities, wherein laws are nothing less than vague and confounding perplexities where a congress full of disingenuous representatives are so caught up in the interest of projecting their own rancorous ideological persuasion that the business of the nation is set aside as a collateral eventual. Therefore the business of governing is delegated to retained attorneys, unelected staff, and ideological acolytes who, aside from direct obedience to orders, imply their own selections and expressions of rightfulness into the rules and regulations of legislative enactments. It is therefore understood that inherent to the congressional process which includes the passing of legislation no one understands, is the handing off of endorsed laws of the land to an unelected public employee union protected officialdom of civil servants.  

The willingness of the elected, often with the blessings of their constituency, to accept a heavily leveraged debt on future tax revenue requires decades of not simply imprudent legislation or the simple disregard of the sagacious in favor of expedited contrivance. Nor is this nation’s fiscal disposition the fault of political connivance for some special interest, oh no, the corruption is much deeper and broader in scope than that simplistic an answer.  

Most disconcertingly the fault that forms the basis for this nation’s present fiscal disposition lies within the quality of its national leaders. It is the leadership — or should I enunciate the lack of leadership — that has eroded conventional American values. Leaders, instead of accepting the realities of truthful disclosure (to the people as well as to themselves) have fabricated a surrealistic response to national problems in hopes of retaining or attaining elected office and to facilitate those allied brethren who would benefit from such political tomfoolery.

A significant portion of the populous has purposefully (documented by willful actions) abandoned direct responsibility for their actions in favor of governmental sureties of sustaining guarantees. They have discarded traditional virtues for the convenience of the now. An increasing portion of the electorate has been convinced to morally forsaken outcomes, consequences, and the eventual finality of reality by applying the reassuring habitual of amoral stupefaction.    

No greater example of such non-leadership is the Obama-Bidden administration… the only responsibility they agree to accept is the responsibility of governing for the next four years. Do we conservatives, moderates, and even fair-minded liberals really want four more years of the Obama-Bidden brand of leadership? I think NOT.

The government can easily hide, rearrange, and disfigure data and statistics; the government can print money and tax every American for anything it wishes. The president can lie to the American people; he can coach the Secretary of State and the head of national intelligence to fault themselves for the distortions of facts in Libya… But this president cannot fool all the people all of the time. The evidence of all my contentions and assertions will be vindicated or not upon election night…





ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS

14 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

The presumptive sympathetic is that the world’s institutions, governments, behavioral, and general motivation to act is founded on the basis of reason; inclusively, it is accepted that what is reasonable is also rational and sensible. This predetermined understanding is an a priori assumption fixed into the equation of any cognitive analysis prior to (any person, business, or institution) developing a meaningful guidance’s or plan. This ‘presumptive sympathetic’ is automatically interwoven as an accepted constant. But as with the set and drift of ocean currents, counter-presumptive influences alter the predetermined vector often casting adrift the sum that would otherwise be a logical, deductive, and factually conclusive.

I declare that the world of men and institutions are not reasonable, rational, or sensible; in fact, the contrary is more of a truism then the presumptive.

There are many, many, explanations. The natural inclination is to ask, “But why?” Why it is that reasonable, rational, and sensible do not describe nor are a part of the actions of mankind? It starts within the embryo of our creation: We humans must kill other living things in order to survive and our brain is designed to instinctively prevent our own destruction; hence violent conflict has become a human characteristic, as well as, a defining narrative of humanity. We humans are social animals and utilize such social skills to assist in our intrinsic passion to endure and survive. We are cognitively and emotionally susceptible to acting on irrational judgments that one may clinically describe as behaviorally dysfunctional.

Admittedly, since inception we humans have advanced the ideals of basic kindness, love of and for others, we humans are charitable, giving of self, and capable of creating beauty, tolerance, and appreciating the virtues of empathy. On the other hand, it took humanoids one million years to attach a sharpen rock to a stick and less than a century to develop weapons to destroy all living things on the planet. This sort of technological progress, coupled with the history of violent conflict, explicates my contention that the reasonable and rational have little to do with the world, its people, or its institutions.

Therefore, I offer the plausible deduction that, reasonable and rational, or what has heretofore been considered the presumptive basis of a founding assumption, on a stand-alone basis, is at best inadequate (as to an aggregate of facts equating to a solution) at worse a severe misalignment of reality.

“But,” exclaims the contrarian reader, “that’s why we have laws to govern society.”

“Yes,” the realist responds, exactly so.” Then the realist goes on to explain the differing between what the law decrees and what the government decides to enforce. Noting that the discretion expressed by those powerful enough to ignore the law is broad, that such discretion of enforcement feeds into the evidence that such conduct differs substantively to the meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution, the elective’s oath of office, and is in direct deference to the belief that America is a nation of laws not of men.

The realist continues: “Circumvention of the constitution is now passé, enforcement of statutory laws are so discretionary that the practice is close to (at will) abandonment. Politicians lie; spokespersons of the elected evade, political party loyalist, pundits, and representative openly distort the truth; and the media have forsaken their obligatory of, ‘just the facts.’ There is nothing reasonable, rational, or sensible about any of the preceding.

The Obama presidency is a Statist zeitgeist; a Saul Alinsky moment. A time of crony capitalism, a perfect instance of government malfeasance regarding the expenditures of surplus, a costly green energy boondoggle, a ideologically bent department of justice, an utterly stupid approach to an energy non-policy, a state department that ignored the request for security personal to protect our ambassador in Libya, and a White House, for the sake of winning an election will lie and distort the palpable in the hopes that no one will notice.”

One can clearly visualize my contention that there is nothing reasonable or rational in our world or the man running for reelection…   





CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOVERN?

12 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

A question of significant concern: Can the American people adhere to the covenants of the 2012 constitution (that being the amended and present judicial interpretive of the 1789 constitution) and govern themselves? The answer is NO, the American people cannot… Well, why not?

Because… At the expense of prudent governing — and to the detriment of self-governing principles — Americans have allowed the central government to create a Byzantine operational process wherein the accepted methodology of congressional bureaucracy is opaque, confounding, and counter-intuitive. Legislation is voted into law on ideological concepts; committees of staff and appointed, not the elected, write and explain legislation to the legislators. The agencies, departments, and congressional committees of our government have literally been overrun by legalese ambiguity. Prompted by the dominance of political parties and to the joy of media outlets, both, the scurrilous and the panegyric bandy about the daily news cycle as though scheduled melodramatic programming. Governing units as a matter of routine persistently produce contrivances of misdirection and outright distortion. Citizens pay more attention to sports, games of chance, and celebrity doings than civic responsibilities.

Because… Governing is so confounding in scope and process that professional wonks disagree on the merits of legislation, rules, and regulations. Obviously, the workings of government are no longer understood by the governed; hence government has evolved into a perpetual motion machine accountable to few. The clear indicator of such a charge is government’s uncontrollable spending.    

Because… Politically inspired econometric analysis… what? Econometric analysis is the application of mathematical and statistical techniques to economic data and problems. I’m suggesting that because such analysis is tainted and besmirched with the supplemental of political gamesmanship and the constancy of ideological inclination, the sum of the collected data is at risk of never achieving definitive accuracy.  The analysis of data is considered, evaluated, and eventually summed with diametrically different results depending on the ideological beliefs of the entity conducting the analysis. In other words, if the basis of founding evidence is distorted by other than the empirical, the deductive, and the utility of logic, then the baby goes out with the dirty water.

Because… Many within the electorate have succumbed to mimicking the ideals of minimalism. They have allowed pretty words and handsome smiles to delete the application of prudence, due diligence, askance of the elected, honesty, and honor. They have traded individual liberty and the meaningfulness of freedom for the naïve, even childlike acceptance that government will render to each and every American a panacea society. A significant percentage of Americans have rejected self-reliance, existentialist principles, and the steadfast adherence to the vital a-priori principle of Americanism: Never subordinate one’s individual freedom, in form or function, to king or government.

We may never regain the means to self-govern; but, if there is interest in such, this election of 2012 would be an excellent measure of public sympathy for one or the other…





A LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE

7 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

…is pretentious, arrogant, and single-mindedly engaged in the decimation of capitalism (as an economic system). Liberal progressivism is inherently detrimental to individual liberty. One cannot infuse such a policy without a bigger central government and along with it the abandonment of fiscal prudence. If empirical evidence is required just review the present general circumstance of the federal government.

Nevertheless, President Obama and his acolytes push “forward” with their ambitions. Stationed in Chicago, in the president’s reelection headquarters, hundreds of millions are funding the progressive’s most potent opportunity to impose a liberal progressiveness agenda onto America. If the Democratic Party is not successful the voter-rejection of an incumbent liberal progressive president will vigorously and viscously realign the party from the political left to the right. However, if successful,  this determined coalition of progressive politicians, appointed bureaucrats, guilelessly predisposed idealist,  unionist, socialist, contrarian-activist, utopians, nihilist, and those depending on an empathetic government will win very big.  

The liberal progressive vows to implement throughout the nation a governing imposition of moral-righteousness a principle they brand as social justice. Such a pledge is a conviction that encapsulate(s) the progressive’s priority of political disposition and defines their ideal that social justice is not only a pillar of their political, economic, and moral identification but more so social justice is a policy that invokes, the heartfelt, very meaningfulness, of a progressive’s ideological being.

Cloaked in the ill-defined purpose of emasculating the rich and the powerful for the benefit of the poor, the disadvantaged, the deprived, and the disenfranchised, these progressives go about their business of goading business with accusations of greed, apathy, and ethical debauchery whiles they solicit them for campaign contribution and freebies. They scream for more regulation on the processes of business and at the same time cry for business to part with their cash and hire more employees.

There are more than ever before more people on food stamps and welfare, the middle class income earners are realizing $5,000 less per year than before the Obama reign, amazingly the progressives insist that if given four more years President Obama will put the round into the square and all will be as promised in 2008.

The Obama administration dances the polka whiles fiddling their way from misdirection of the facts to the next distortion of truthfulness. At the recent debate the president was disabled and discombobulated not by Denver’s mountain air or by (as charged by a few leftists provocateurs) Romney’s cheat sheet or lies; the president was simply overwhelmed by the accuracy of subject matter verses Obama’s campaign of mutilation of the truth.

I’m certainly looking forward to this last month of campaigns and debates, I am really interested in the direction the American people vote…





OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE

3 10 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

The people prompted initially to safeguard the community from its enemies, to maximize resources, or to defeat a foe, allied together. Leaders were defined, the governing entity formed, individual freedom and liberty willingly exchanged for the generally accepted concept of corporal safety. In short order cultural mores and statutory laws developed to support the governing entity. Judicial processes were established; subject to certainties, subjective intangibles, and the whims and wilds of unanticipated possibilities governing came into being.

Over a period of time…the idea of self-governance developed wherein the individual verses the state was the object of value. In America a constitution was documented, affirmed by the drafters, and voted on by the people. Inclusively this constitution would protect and insure its (individual) constituents certain specific rights, a check and balance system of governance, and the institutionalization of federalism as a means to limit the size and power of the central government.

By 1789 in measurable terms American self-governance statutorily in place. Until a cataclysmic event took place, the more conservative political constituents were split by TR Roosevelt’s entry into the presidential elections. Wilson a definitive progressive from academia won. Shortly thereafter via the tax code of 1913 wherein the constitution was amended to permit the Fed’s the right to tax each individual for anything it wishes (The Chief Justice willed it so in 2012) pure imperial power was installed. But, as grievous the power to tax the power to distribute is the death blow to the idea and founding premise of federalism.

States either accept federal monies coupled with federal rules and regulations or lose the money; this has created the most dangerous threat to this republic. Interestingly the means to the result of this systematic form of statutorily compliant corruption has been approved by congress and has the tenure of almost one hundred years of precedence.

State sovereignty was mitigated by federal edicts tied to receiving federal funds. In place of State sovereignty is warring political fiefdoms; two predominating power allegiances incorporated within the 
utility of political parties each struggling to control the reins of federal governorship. Each officer holder serving in congress strives and is judged on how much federal off-balance-sheet tax dollars 
they could return to their constituencies. Over-handed and under-handed deals were and are struck; legislation voted for and against, appoints secured, and in the interest of funding pet projects close-room chancery prevails-the republic’s tolerance is waning-some call such nonsense, “the political artfulness of compromise.”

So it seems no matter the safeguards-by means extraordinary or mundane-the ideal of self-government dedicated to individual freedom and liberty are eventually corrupted, abused, and eventually lost to the 
discretion of an intrusively omnipotent coercive government more apt to prefer cronyism and the collective to the merits of individualism founded on individual freedoms and personal liberty.

The encroachment upon an individual’s freedom to act unilaterally within the affairs of business is almost entirely controlled by some government statue, license, or regulation. This controlling interdiction upon what was once the providence of individual choice has been attained at a variant pace but nevertheless steadfastly since 1789.

The rational for such encroachment has generally been sanctified by the holy dictum, “in the public interest,” or in words that align in and for the good of the general welfare. Interestingly, these are the same words used by dictators, rouges, military juntas, and all usurpers of individual freedom and liberty.

Today’s American version of same (as defined in the previous paragraph) however are not fanatics, ambitious generals, or misguided politicians; not even close, our versions graduated with advanced degrees from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton; they are the upper crust of intellectualism. They are the cognitively enhanced elite. Plainly stated, these are the ones’ that know the most about all things relevant.

They are sublimely anointed with the knowledge of what is deemed, albeit introspectively, to be worthy, principal, and essential to a civil society. It therefore follows that ‘they’ who know what is best for the common and the ordinary should lead the people

The cognitively enhanced are intuitively ethical and intrinsically moral. The sublimely anointed are blessed with the perfection of clear-sighted-righteousness; it is such an introspective that prompts those that know the most about all things relevant to comprehend that the only reason conservatism or libertarianism exist is for the lack of a formal education.

These intellectuals are comforted in the knowing that the proper liberal-progressive induced education not only benefits the public but also proportionately serves to positively embolden political and ideological persuasiveness in the liberal progressive cause. It is palpably apparent to the liberal progressive that only the maliciously ignorant and educationally deficient could rationalize a political system founded on conservative values.

Now the progressive is not sufficiently naive to believe that all persons can graduate from college in fact, viable sources of the endorsers of progressivism have little to no formal U. S. education they are “non-documented” or more blatantly they are illegal’s. In this immigration issue the progressives buy their vote with food stamps, welfare, and free medical benefits. Well wait a minute, one might caution if they are illegal how progressives can buy their vote? Hmm…by buying the sympathy of those of Latin heritage who can vote many family members of illegals are legal American citizens. Give the people beer, games, and bread… it worked for the emperors of ancient Rome…Or did it?

Liberal progressivism cannot generate political success within a self-reliant, hard-working, and ethically sound populous; their message will only resonant in a dependant-on-government, hardly want to work, amoral society who will willingly subordinate to a government that supplies (the symbolic) bread, wine, lotto-tickets, and games. I fear the people have lost all interest in a republic and just as soon have the liberal progressives of the world do all the thinking for them…the definitive to my fear will be documented in this next election.