PROGRESSIVE FASCISM

22 02 2014

Authored by William Robert Barber

The a priori thesis of liberal progressivism is founded in the supposition of cognitive superiority as well as the inferential inductive that the average citizen is average in every measure. This is the basis of the progressive ideology and therefore follows that progressivism concludes that the power of governance should reside within the providence of persons of cognitive superiority. The stumbling block to this progressive supposition is the U.S. Constitution — and that is why distorting the meaningfulness of the constitution is so critical to the FDR and Obama-like ideologues.

Those of us who are not Ivy League graduates therefore (according to those who know just about everything) should have enough intelligence to submit to the obvious: We of common public school education lack either the brains or the wherewithal to do our own thinking. In sum, progressives as a natural bequeath of their profound enlightenments are intrinsically gifted with a sense of savoir faire, as such, they are provoked by a sense of altruistic noblesse oblige and therefore in service to those of common intelligence must insist on doing all the thinking.  

Progressives righteously ascertain that the common are cerebrally inept as well as stubbornly weak-minded, thus the need for protection from the unscrupulous Republicans and Libertarians that would advantage their vote or simpatico. After all, liberals understand that the common are easily swayed by ad hoc demagoguery and anecdotal myths of rugged individualism. Liberal progressives profess that society, family, and person would definitely be better served if thinking, decision making, and empirical deductions were bestowed upon those intellectually endowed to decipher for others fact from fiction, right from wrong, and justice from injustice.

A government of progressive ideals is one wherein the virtuous arbitrator (government) taxes with the one hand and distributes with the other. Of course the government is also the licensor of all products and services offered for sale and then taxed again when sold. Such products include liquor, cigarettes, drugs of every description, banking, securities, gambling, legal prostitution, all food, water, utilities, gasoline, well hell, the government — be it State or Federal — licenses the distribution of just about everything. Wait a minute, hold on… is this not the government of the present?

The imposition of government largeness upon the nation’s tax revenue is weighed and measured best by calculating the ever growing cost of governance. The size and complexity of processing the imposed largeness guarantees a continuum of an ever growing government. Such a system requires a bureaucracy of technocrats symbiotically supported by a willing-to-spend congress. Withstanding the progressives’ resistance to the truth, the federal government is the metaphorically revived “Gordian Knot” and as with Alexander the Great’s solution to its entanglement, it must be vigorously slashed and cleaved.

Now if all that an Obama government imposed was a progressive ideology, disproportionately biased taxation, and an excessively regulated business environment, one could find remedy in the next election. But oh no, the imposition of having Mr. Obama as president extends much further: the president’s habitual nativity, wishful ignorance, isolationist policies, unworldliness, coupled with a compulsive tendency to deceive, lie, and misdirect are clinical examples of dysfunctional behavior.  My overriding issue of concern is the president’s statutorily compliant debauchery of corruption and the resulting slide into a nation of men, not laws.

Advertisements




THE OBAMA DOCTRINE OF SILLINESS

16 02 2014

Authored by William Robert Barber

Is it reasonable to define President Obama and his progressive cohorts as childishly inclined? Their actions example a world of make-believe, of hopes and dreams, butterflies and rainbows. How could this government with all of its departmental resources and brainy Ivy League benefactors act so incredibly naïve?

For example: Is it reasonable to believe that the Muslims of Near-Eastern geography would convert their historically founded hatred of Jews to one of tolerance? Or that these very Muslims would accept the Judeo-Christians belief in the value of the individual, the application of democratic governing principles, much less, the statutory requirement of equality under the law respective of gender? Of course there are exceptions to every rule and judgment; but these western values are impositions incompatible to not just their culture heritage but their theological beliefs.  

The basis of Present Obama’s “reset policy” for Putin’s Russia was obviously foolish, irrational, and dumb. Secretary Clinton’s insane interpretation of Libyan governing stability which led to a false sense of security, the terrorist attack, and the subsequent childish bungling cover-up over the Benghazi Affair should set the standard for foreign policy silliness. Of course such shenanigans did not educate Secretary Kerry as to Russia’s baneful intentions. His ridiculous submission to Putin’s checkmate over chemical weapons was a ringmaster’s taming of the lions. Imagine the President and Secretary endorsing a policy that not only did not rid Assad of his chemical capability but stymied President Obama from an attempt to dethroning Assad. Instead of bombing Assad’s military in an effort to admonish those that dared to use chemical weapons on civilians, the United States enabled Assad’s position domestically and elevated Russia as the power broker extraordinaire.

Considering the status of the Syrian civil war and the conflict with the Palestinian and Jewish state, one must assume Mr. Kerry believes that respective of Iran’s arming and funding of forces counter to American interests, that despite the actions taken virtually all over the world to kill Jewish citizens and Americans in Iraqi, that peace is achievable if only the Israelis will submit to his agenda. How absolutely absurd, silly, and naïve; factually, between President Obama’s failure to punish Syria for using chemical weapons and Secretary Kerry’s  ‘give-in’ negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weaponry I am surprised that Russia has not advised Iran to provoke American naval forces just to see how far we will not go as to a response.

One might find cause to supplement naïve and childish with silly, dumbfounding, counter-intuitive and in its finality conclusively incompetent.  





HE JUST WILL NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

7 02 2014

Authored by William Robert Barber

President Obama can rhetorically dance around the questions posed by Bill O’Reilly without ever answering them; his cohorts can belie the truth with innuendos and misdirection; but neither the president nor his cohorts can take the round of the truth and fit it into the square of ‘believability’.

ObamaCare is a not only a financial disaster; the worst of it is that the law will function as designed. No rhetorical dance nor amount of misdirection expended by the leftist political class will make the wet rain dry. Even if one describes the transference of capital as an “investment”, the government’s policy of the non-recourse subsidizing (aka giving away taxpayer monies) to those that do not work from monies earned from those that do is neither prudent nor sustainable.  

The president and his Democrats whine, whimper, and wail away at how unfairly the American society operates; the complaint is that the average Joe does not compete in an equal playing field. That the downtrodden and disenfranchised are substantively discriminated upon because they lack the means to attain the tools required for financial surety. I am flabbergasted by the notion that anyone operates in or on an equal playing field. Isn’t the objective of business to one-up one’s competitor? Isn’t it a fact and true that a company that can financially sustain a lawsuit is in a much stronger position to win than the counter-party that cannot financially sustain the cost of litigation? What do any of the preceding examples have to do with fairness? Nothing!  

Not only is life unfair; it is genetically, environmentally, and genuinely created as such. The concept of ‘fair’ is a feature of a game — but then, life is not a game: Life is a struggle. Fair does not mean justice nor is justice necessarily fair. What President Obama desires is to impose his brand or interpretation of ‘fair’ by mandating his definition of social justice. The president is determined — and will institute by all means within his ability — to enact the transformation of American values.

Inclusive of means covertly extralegal or overtly illegal, they promise, cajole, and lie; for liberal progressives the process is of insignificant concern. With one hand in the cookie jar, these socialists and progressives develop eye-catching spectacular mirages; they espouse the ideology of Lenin while excluding (as with ObamaCare) themselves from the Leninist result of equalitarianism.

With angst and troubling apprehension I look forward to the next election…