HOPE IS AN ILLUSION

23 05 2016

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama government is much more comfortable with the concept of “Hope” than the “take no prisoners” truth that defines this apathetic, “could-give-a damn” Darwinian survival of the fittest world. Even when evidencing what one deems as critically threatening to American interest, the president insists on “Hope” as the viable alternative to a persistently menacing problem.

The philosophic basis of today’s liberalism is one of hopefulness. As a liberal thinker President Obama presumes that man is rooted in good; therefore, all discerned exceptions to “good behavior” are the fault of some societal deficiency or Republican brainwashing.

The crux of the progressives’ political message is to point out the unfairness of the economic system. Directly and obliquely, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders contend that unfairness derived from and perpetuated by the one percent is the significant cause of economic discontent. They imply and express that the elimination of unfairness is their raison d’être for seeking elective public service. Noting that after almost two terms of a democratic presidency the central issue of concern for Clinton and Sanders persists. Irrespective, the battle cry for elective office by democratic contenders remains a slight variation of “Change We Believe In.”

Firstly, I assume, Clinton and Sanders, in every instance, will define fair. Secondly, they will ultimately define fair in keeping with their ideology and the terms, conditions, and timing requirements of their political resources. However, differing only on the amount of tax dollars needed, these two presidential candidates have summarily agreed on the solution. They have promised to cure what ails with the dispensing of other peoples’ cash. “Spend more money” is the steadfast progressive solution — a solution the president whole-heartily indorses.

Premised on a naïve, fragmented, even incoherent displacement of deductive logic rest the founding principles of President Obama’s foreign policy. He thought that he could declare peace… in fact, he did declare peace and withdrew armed forces from Iraq while underfunding the entire U. S. Armed Forces. His administration now dances around the use of the word ‘combat.’ The man of hesitancy is bewildered, confused, and befuddled, all the while holding his breath until next January.

Domestically, his factious rhetoric has given cause to the disruptive actions of “Black Lives Matter.” He is the reason Secretary Clinton’s indictment for her email malpractice remains a republican dream.

Of course, no worries: we Americans have “Hope.” We will continue to believe that a good defense is superior to an aggressive, relentless offense. Surely, our enemies will realize Allah’s call to arms is a ruse enacted by evil beings. Thematically Obama’s belief is, if we treat Islamic fanatics with respect, they will embrace, in time, a secular’s sense of human values. Convincingly, there must be moderate Muslims who understand that those who cut off heads, enslave women, and burn people alive in the name of Allah are bad people.

Certainly, the immediate preceding is a descriptive of “Hope.” I prefer to believe in faith rather than hope: I have faith that our armed forces will destroy ISIS because our mission statement is explicit. Our planning is in place and our resolution assured because our nation state accepts nothing less.

Hundreds of years ago a Roman general said, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” — “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Nothing has changed; the world is not any safer and Humankind is just as behaviorally dysfunctional as 1st century Rome. “Hope” is a wish-it-was-so, but it is not reality. Reality took down the Twin Towers. To think otherwise will lead to the end of liberty and the beginning of subjugation.

Advertisements




DAMN… THE DONALD HAS WON

5 05 2016

Authored by William Robert Barber

“It ain’t over till the fat lady sings,” well, in Indiana the fat lady has sung and by means extraordinary, the Wizard of Oz has captured the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. Donald Trump has not only beaten out all of his contenders he has suppressed good sense in favor of celebrity delivered vacuous nonsense.

In 1787 as Ben Franklin left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberations, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic” replied the Doctor, “if you can keep it.” Since the ratification of the 1789 constitution the republic has suffered through the “slings and arrows” of abusive manipulation and exploitation. The “slings and arrows” were cast and aimed by the elected, appointed, and staff of the very governments and persons sworn to uphold the covenants of the constitution.

Presently, Donald Trump, a populist, has seized an opportunity. A man with no governing experience, a conspiratorialist, a man prone to disparaging locution and witless declarations, such is the veracity of democratic principles charged with bumper sticker adages. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear to me that Mrs. Clinton’s progressive ideology, corruptive practice, behaviorally dysfunctional scheming, and “cheating heart” is far, by far a worse choice for president than Donald Trump.

Possibly, the Donald can learn, refine, and reinvent himself into an electable sage. Withstanding all inclinations, wherewithals, and maybe so we are where we are, therefore, I am voting for the Donald.





LEADERSHIP, FOLLOWSHIP, AND THE WIZARD

2 05 2016

Authored by William Robert Barber

Political leadership as expressed from national to State, even local municipalities, rely as much on the balderdash of huffing and puffing as the declarative and substantive. Noticeably however, the further away the political leadership is from the people, the more the reliance on the “huff and puff”. Nonetheless and despite the quantity of balderdash there is more to the game of political leadership than the often bombastic huffing and puffing: There is the indispensable pretense of leading by creative chimera wherein for the political election winner intangibles such as good looks, family pedigree, stylistic positives, rhetorical skill personal/professional connections, a pleasant smile, and the presumptive importance of an urbane image may prompt many a vote. Tangible qualities such as experience and proven records are nice but secondary within the scheme of attaining electoral victory.

Given the resulting wherewithal of political leaders in the current Congress, one could determine that leadership is a misnomer for simple follow ship. Today’s kinetically driven political environment dismisses real leadership as “over the top,” egotistic, demanding, and insensitive; wherein the fact that the protagonist of concern is eventful true, factually non-fiction, and palpable could very well describe an un-electable candidate. After all he or she, being human, could have acted honestly, with clear evidence of straightforward behavioral intent, and almost certainly, by doing so stepped outside of accepted popular culture. Our protagonist could have exercised the sin of independent thinking and did so without clearing with legal, campaign manager, or focus group. Whether the “thinking” was rational, thoughtful, or intelligently discerning is not the crux; the very idea of getting off script is the worrisome concern.

The self-appointed contrarian onlookers will be gunning for our protagonist, the innocuous contrivers seeking fodder to feed the choreographers of drama, the useful-impetuous and ideologically inspired counterparties, all ostensibly performing their duties in the interest of the “non-rivalrous-non-excludable public good” — by means amoral, immoral, extralegal, in sum pernicious, they are intent on destroying our protagonist.

It is therefore entirely probable that political leadership as presently exemplified is here to stay even though acknowledged as less about leading and more a characterization of following.

Stage left enters Trump, the boldly audacious who says what he wants and wants one’s vote; from stage right Cruz, who withstanding his numerable faults and missteps is the last man standing. Somewhere backstage or possibly buried in the audience is the Republican Party’s alternative. This alternative according to the cadre of stop Trump folks is the second coming of a savior. Wishing for the reincarnation of George Washington, the Republican faithful swirling in a maelstrom whiles Trump the presumptive and refuse-to-believe-it-is-happening Cruz prepares for the inevitable. The he/she savior remains a mysterious anonymous.

Trump has perfected the image of leadership and the voters have purchased his wares. He is the personification of illusionary pretense. He is the Wizard of Oz.