THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAMISM

22 04 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

With the grace of God, the people of greater Boston, and an impressive assembly of police authorities from federal to state to local, the evil ones were caught.

We find out that the perpetrators are people America reached out to; people that attended our school system, lived for ten years in our culture, our community. These two very dangerous fellows fraternized with American friends, participated in our sports, the oldest one of the two married and had a child in this country. Nevertheless, withstanding America’s willingness to include, educate, and protect, within a portion of the residing ten years these dastardly fellows planned and executed the killing and maiming of the very people that welcomed them and their families to America. 

Militant radical Islam is not a protest of defiance. It is not a means to counter Western influence. Radical Islam is theocratic-fascism wherein the obligation of a believer is to dedicate one’s life to the eradication of all perceived challenges to Muslim culture and laws. To a Jihadist, the holy war is the bridge to heaven and acts of violence including suicide is blessed by Muhammed.

The theorem of militant radical Islam is wrought with misgivings, misnomers, and such gobbledygook one of common understanding must question its vitality of truthfulness; but instead, the royal family of Saudi Arabia financially supports its teachings. And they are not alone in this endeavor.

There are billions of law-abiding Muslims. Islam is a stable religion. Conflict between the West and the Islamic world has been going on since Islam forged their presence out of the Arabian Peninsula. I do not believe that the secular West will convert to the teachings of Mohammed or the Muslims to secularism, much less Christianity. Therefore, for the rational of mind the compromise is tolerance; understanding of one for the other is a reasonable alternative to acts of terror.

But the government of Iran is not rational nor reasonable. The Taliban and Jihadist are not interested in compromise; these fanatics are not willing to agree on a series of understandings. As with other extremists, these militant Muslim radicals kill their brethren. Preaching the dictates of a traditionally strict Sharia, these terrorists are members of an Islamic cult wherein obedience to the uncompromising Caliph of the true Islamic faith is never questioned; this cult of zealots has willfully segregated itself from the nonbelievers and by shouting aloud “God is great” have pledged their lives to Allah.         

This radicalization of Islam is a definitive threat of the very highest priority. We cannot simply wait. We must act proactively to mitigate any and all probable threats to the homeland. For instance Syria is in possession of chemical weapons and the bad guys could get their hands on this stockpile… the question is: what we are doing about this?!

As horrible the bombings in Boston were, imagine the horror of a chemical weapons attack anywhere in the United States. We need to set aside the niceties and deal with the threat directly and affirmatively.





THE LEGACY OF LIBERAL PROGRESSIVISM

14 04 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

As with a lover’s declaration of fidelity, the preverbal check is in the mail and the notorious promise of repayment if only the funds were available today. In variant manner and differing configuration, such duplicity is the inevitable result of a liberal progressive’s fiscal policy. Bundled within such a policy is a multitude of vectors designed to misdirect those influenced into machinations of a world the progressives wish it was versus the world as it is. A progressive’s world is nuclear-free. It is also a world of rainbow colored possibilities, hollowed assumptions, ill-conceived consequences, and devised contrivances. The progressives’ belief dismisses opposing evidence as counter-purposeful when in fact such evidence simply does not harmonize with their ideological conjecture. By blending agile misrepresentations that are often seeded with distortions, factoids, and off-subject emotive carping, a liberal-progressive’s response to an opposing perspective is fraught with illogical and fanciful dismissiveness. Liberal progressivism is blessed with the philosophical convenience of believing in political conceptualism wherein today’s reality is subordinate to tomorrow’s concept.

Progressives have the inkling that social justice is a moral righteousness that economic disparity (as defined by them) is degrading and sinful, and that private enterprise is the culprit for most of what’s not fair and equitable. Their economic vision inevitably meanders into rhetorical wanderings of cathartic purgatives of class warfare wherein the rich, hence evil doers, suppress the middleclass, hence doers of goodness, and the only virtuous alternative to assuage the grievous harm is government. Naturally, there is a bushel full of hypocrisy and deceit incorporated in their assumptions and presumption; nevertheless this particular truth of the matter will never lead to a reorientation of their core ideology. 

Relative to the rich there will always be poor; there will always be benevolence as there will always be malevolence. We humans are in features, culture, language, circumstance, aptitude, and health decidedly different beings of shared commonalities. Analogous with such distinction one accepts that self-interest is an a priori human prerogative. Power, be it corporeal, economic, financial, or even imagined as real, is the essential fuel that motivates, provokes, and maintains the actions of all transactions and behavior. Humans, respective of altruistic exceptions, in the ultimate finality of defining behavior will always act in their perception of self-interest. For this reason alone, individual liberty and freedom cannot be limited in favor of a powerful-government’s interpretive of what’s best for the collective’s economic good.

Progressives as well as conservatives are susceptible to the often beguilingly inducement of subtle white lies, minor infringements, and petty violations of conscience. But when the President of the United States and prominent acolytes of the president, offer in the normal course of oratory, dispositions of ideological biases that demean into Ad Hominem accusations against the Republican Party or the so-named “right-wing” of America; the practice of common civility abates, tolerance subsides, and purposeful dialogue between opposing factions suffers. The potent forces of amorality, the obvious absence of righteous sublimity, the misrepresentation of common civility for political gain is severely damaging our republic.

I understand that covetousness and envy are integral to human expression; that one’s traditional values are besieged by ever-changing mores. I recognize that there are challenges and questions of statutory legitimacy as to what was once considered lawful and unassailable. However, respective of the preceding and of course appreciating the president’s political goal of winning a majority in the House of Representative, the president and his progressive economic agenda, is doomed to failure. He and his progressives will fail to win the hearts and minds of Americans because what they represent is athwart to the ethos of the American version of a democratic republic; additionally, President Obama’s progressive principles of social justice integrated within an entitlement society wherein a dominate federal government oversees a centrally planned economy is doomed simply because the policy is incompatible with liberty, freedom, as well as economic sensibility.

President Obama’s progressives’ policies will fail but that does not necessarily mean that progressivism will fail to influence or even fail to overcome the empirical-sensibility of capitalism; indeed, the republic could degenerate into a European-style economic/social model. It is possible for Americans to forsaken their heritage of freedom and their ideal of individual liberty for the socialistic ruse of surety and protection from all of life’s challenge. Such would be a progressive’s dream come true… such would be Obama’s legacy.





ARE ACTS OF IDIOCY, ARROGANCE, HUBRIS, AND JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY REASON TO INDICT?

5 04 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

State and local governments owe $7.3 trillion in debt obligations, none of which were ever approved by voters. Recently the State of Illinois was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with making misleading statements to investors; in addition the State was accused of deceptive practices including the failure to tell investors that their pension fund was so underfunded that it was at risk of bankruptcy.

Sacramento, the capital of California, owes over $2 billion in obligations — when compared to the city’s budget of just $366 million with a population of 477,000 residents. The city of Stockton, another California local, has just immerged from bankruptcy leaving debtors high and dry. One does wonder if the elected were totally devoid of sensibility.

Nevertheless, governments continue to promise and spend; interestingly, the courts citing precedence over good sense have stamped this process of suicidal impairment as legal. Of course these irresponsible, on-the-verge-of-silly-and-foolish government induced promises of egregious indebtedness were not made in a vacuum. There was a clear purpose, an intentional quid pro quo; and yes, you’re right, you’ve guessed it: politicians bought votes by promising union members, the idle, and the weak of mind a heaven on earth today for a promise to pay the accumulated debt sometime in the future.

Thus far we have been considering government defaults on promises to pay pension and retirement debt; of course, the bungling of this issue alone should evidence the ineffectual of those that govern. But if there are any lingering doubts as to the idiocies of politicians, consider the helter-skelter methodology of federal and State investment in green energy. The principal example of nutty decision-making is California. As if to insure future power shortages, the State of California has enacted daunting green energy mandates upon its utility companies; the effect of which has jeopardized the utilities’ primary responsibility of providing a steady flow of electrical energy at a competitive market price. The State’s insistence on ‘Green’ has stymied the building of new generators or to refurbish old ones; there is no robust energy backup system because the utility companies do not want to invest without an opportunity to earn a return on such an investment.

Because of green energy’s favorable tax and application incentives, the illogical near abandonment of fossil fuel energy expansion, and government’s insistence on denying the building of nuclear alternatives California is susceptible to the risk of citizens paying even more than the 25% to 60% higher than the national average they are paying now.

If for any reason there should be an unexpected outage at the San Onofre nuclear plant, rolling blackouts are as predictable as California’s beautiful sunsets.

Arrogance is an iniquitous disorder; the common antidote is humility. That is unless the arrogant perpetrator is a government and its policymakers. In this case the policymakers wiggle, dance, slither, whine, and promise the undeliverable, and eventually scheme their way out of the corner so to facilitate the continuum of stupid.

The very same policymakers who have willfully conspired for years to deceive regulators, investors, lenders, and the populous — although knowing of their flouting disregard, without even the slightest inclination of expiating or correcting the wrongfulness of their policy — have instead doubled up on their hubris; these rascals have steadfastly violated statutory laws, ethical behavior, and the spirit of ordinary truthfulness. Now I ask where, oh where is the Department of Justice?! Oh yes, government and their policymakers are not indictable; idiocy, imprudence, arrogance, and hubris are not statutory violations. Hmm…where are the Federalist Papers when one needs them???