IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE RIGHT

20 10 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

Some time ago, America was a society wherein freedom was of the highest virtue and individual liberty was valued as the moral priority; both virtue and value were considered an intrinsic quantifier of Americanism. It was a land of law, not of man; a country that refused to tender or abate its existential character of self-reliance… Or so tellers of America’s history disseminate.

Then the promisors with loquacious fancifulness spoke of milk and honey awaiting disbursement just over the next hill. These whimsically imaginative ones (liberal progressives) premised the novel ideal of socialistic-egalitarianism; they expressed the sensibility of a new economic system that produces a classless society. Where the rich redistribute their wealth uplifting the ever-present class of poor and disenfranchised into the one and only class of the common. They foretold of a new order of fairness inherent within an order of social justice, of moral equivalences, a society of equals where there are no losers. Policy experts within the government do all the heavy-thinking; every citizen will be safeguarded form harm. The government will parentally oversee all sectors of life and living. In this society of predestined socialistic egalitarianism every man, woman, and child will have a righteous stress-free life.

And just as Woodrow Wilson before,  Barrack Obama has as a matter of policy willfully used his political and apolitical power to aid and abet the transference of a government subordinate to the requirements of the nation’s constitution to one where the people are the property of the government. This transformation of a government by, for, and of the people to a government that is only beholding to its own governing interpretation of righteousness has eroded if not eradicated the traditional vestiges of individual liberty and freedom. The damage to the constitutional essence of America, its traditional being, is so prodigious one could surmise it is irrevocable.  

Like an insect stuck on flypaper politicians cannot act responsibly much less prudently. The hatred of one for the other is real and just as irrevocable as the federal government’s insistence on unlimited power and governing authority. The political process flows through a Byzantine network of automated at times contrary and self-determined bureaucracies, laws withstanding legislative intent is interposed, intersected, and interfered by regulators, politicians are geared to attain or retain power, and the people are prodded to vote for promises of more instead of sound governing policies.

This is as unsustainable as ObamaCare. The only question is, how long before government simply stops functioning in anyone’s interest? How much will it cost the ones who actually pay the majority of federal taxes? Over and over again the situational programming of incompetent governing has fueled the fire of revolt.

The grass is not greener. The progressives do not embellish, they are not boasting or exaggerating, they do more than distort: these liberal progressives lie. What they offer is subservience to the ideal of a secular godlike figure configured in the form of government.

There are no substitutes of or for hard work or market risk. The government is to be feared and never trusted; the governed should always look upon the government as a necessary evil and consider the constancy of askance as the only antidotal measure of any governing entity.

Advertisements




THE PIED-PIPER PROMISES OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVES

13 10 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

Whether searching, requesting, or compelled to contend — information inundates our sphere; few of us have the time or the energy to cognitively inhale the voluminous obtainable. This is particularly true of pending legislation, general political happenings, or the specifics of governmental activities. So we rely on media, pundits, newspaper reporters, bloggers, and our particular elected representatives to parse the fact from the near fact and outright fiction.

In essence, we invest our future into the belief that leadership is moral and most importantly correct in the assessment of the dynamics: Problem-solution.

Naturally, the enlightened (that is us) recognize that much of the differing perspectives are slanted and prejudiced by the conditioning and suppositions of one’s particular ideological formative. And considering we often, in the interest of psychological comfort and intellectual validation, seek the source of information that is bent to our interpretive-political sway; we enlighten, intentionally scan the counter to our political innate with a cursor that is mindfully designed to reinforce our original premise rather than crystallize a differing perspective.

 Nonetheless, we all recognize our true investment is in the intellectual prowess of our elected and their adherents to the covenants of governance within the constitution.

Aside from visioning the world through the restrictive prism of a personal perspective; we are quite pleased with the lucid judicious approach afforded by the deductive qualities of rational and reason. The problem is the world and its inhabitants are neither rational nor reasonable. Factually, the world and its behavior is much more dysfunctional than functional. Certainly politics and all that accompanies its being, including persons, particulars, and ideals, are founded on a basis of a tolerable amoral pedigree. So withstanding the rigorous indigestion and comprehension of the voluminous obtainable; no matter the degree of one’s intellectual astuteness, we are all blown by the wind of the political process. The a priori righteousness of the subject, the consequential result, as well as, the pragmatic rational and reasonable approach to a solution will always be discarded in favor of the prevailing perspective.

Knowing all described in the preceding paragraph is true and submitting to the understanding that the political process is overwhelming we citizens have chosen to abandon the participatory requirement of democracy in favor of an unabashed faith in our elected.

Today’s flavor of prevailing perspective has been around since the domestication of animals, and the harvesting of crops; those in power promise more than is deliverable. This embellishment of what is real and possible has been the mainstay utility of many a governing person. Nothing novel; what I do find profoundly extraordinary is that the bright and shiny object of promise still works. I am also surprised by the personas in leadership that successfully professes a continuum of undeliverable embellishments; these persons are not the model of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. These politicians are not leaders. These are pied pipers leading the foolish, the naïve, the commonly stupid, and the “what’s in it for me,” onward to the promised land of “milk and honey.”

The result of this pied piper’s allusion (the prevailing perspective) of the possible will inevitably be as it has always been a costly extravaganza of disillusionment.

Learn a reality lesson, create a synthetic of what was learned, fabricate a synthesis of the original lesson learned, pay the price of relearning the original lesson, and recreate this dynamic over and over again. A political history of humankind…





YES, I HAVE AN EDUCATED OPINION

12 10 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

Once introduced and accepted as truthful, the empathetic outreaches of the inductive thought process tend to mindfully bloom, embed, and remain; these ‘truths’ are rarely recanted. The indoctrinated, if queried for an opinion readily transforms into a fevered evangelist exclaiming the embed beliefs as unimpeachably truthful. Convinced of the righteousness of their belief they consider the contextual of the embedded as unquestionably substantive and factual; but in reality instead of truth, with few exceptions, these beliefs are suppositions founded on predeterminations void of empirical evidence. As with our religious preference, our acceptance of certain behavioral norms, adherence to societal and cultural taboos, and the willful compliance to what is considered sacred or prohibited, the inductive process has embedded itself upon the formative foundation of the believer.

The reason for such emphatic conclusiveness by a believer is principally because of the hard drive wiring that manages all of the embedded cognitive software applications. This software shuts down the scanning for new information that could alter a perspective; instead, the software only gathers information that supports the original inductive thought.

It is the displacement of deductive analysis by inductive acceptance that has altered the logic of evidentiary reasoning. It is the alteration of what was once considered the process of pragmatic thinking that has dulled the genetic instinctual of intellectual survival. Instead of facts resulting from deductive analysis political truths (for the many) are created by fixed understandings; encoded as inexorable truths. Often a predetermination, regardless of explicit evidence to the contrary undermines the formative; nevertheless, the original belief is never challenged.

Political parties discourage independent thinking (just ask the senator from Texas) the designated political monarch acting as the supreme know-most-if-not-all writes and disseminates the political talking points. Calculating time and space so to affect the most influence the media and their pundits’ stroke and bolster the ideological interpretive that suit their political perspective. For these professional disseminators of information it matters least that as a substitute for truthfulness are voluminous expressions of contrarian conceits vacuous of empirical verification. What does matter is an acceptance of the information not necessarily by the majority but by the ones with the loudest most prominent influence.

The elected take a differing route than the common as to beliefs closely held; when summoned to answer or declare politicians prevaricates until the sunsets.





OUR DEMOCRACY

8 10 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

For Americans, democratic principles constitutionally expressed within the framework of a republic is la raison d’être; the meaningfulness of being governed from within such a political structure is comforting, prideful, and righteous. We Americans consider our democracy as the basis of our exceptionalism and our exceptionalism the ethos of Americanism. The United States of America is a democracy. The rational of our democracy is founded on the belief that because of our enshrined-into-law democratic principles, the power of government in America is mollified or thwarted, thereby stymieing governmental excessiveness.

Withstanding the previous paragraph, historical evidence has repetitively proven that the lawful are besieged by scofflaws. That interpretation of laws, so to service special interest, has been viciously maligned and transposed from original intent. The lawful (such as the Tea Party) have been unjustly aspersed and vilified by their political counterparties.

Evildoers spew evil deeds. But when the acclaimed of the liberal progressive party scornfully disregard the tenants of the nation’s constitution, when the House of Representatives are accusatively touted as the house of NO while elevating the executive office to that of Caesar, when public relations has the priority over statesmanship, and government spending (for the last fifty years) exceeds the nation’s revenue, it is time to convene the reasonable and rational to end the liberal progressive repetition of the explicitly nonsensical.

Settling on the precise equipoise within the workings of a democratic republic prompts a tug-of-war betwixt an individual’s sovereignty and government’s statutory power. Government is sanctioned to act as a protectorate; such includes the government’s assumption of discretionary and, most probably, arbitrary use of coercive force. Almost all of the contesting between political parties hover over the settling on the precise ideological equipoise.

Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “law is nothing more than the dominant opinion of society.” The dominant opinion of society is the thesis of majority rule. This principle of “Majoritarianism” could provoke, within the minority, a violent or otherwise form of disobedience. Therefore the discernible means to achieve equipoise respective of majority or minority is essential to cohesive governance. President Obama and his Democrats forced through the congress, without one Republican vote, ObamaCare. This blatant display of “Majoritarianism,” this jamming of a major legislative product without any degree of consensus, cost the president preventable disharmony and discord.

As to the politics of governance, democracy in the United States is now more myth than reality. When it comes to the application of democratic principles (and the reality thereof), democracy in America is an unchallenged pretense.  Within the politics of governance, political persuasion though usually nothing more than rhetorical and vacuous speechmaking, reigns superior. Americans prefer to dismiss the plainly apparent (lack of democratic principles) via the guilelessness of collective acceptance; seemingly, the convenience and ease of conventional tolerance has finessed democratic principles into the stratum of the unconcerned.  

We are two elections away from the end of even the semblance of a democratic republic…