Authored by William Robert Barber
Besieged by the erratic definition of moral principles, amoral behavior is accepted as a non-confrontational alternative. Statutory impositions purposely coupled with ambiguous language have spawned (within our societal norms) a confusing mixer of hypocrisy and sharp contradiction. Laws legislatively affirmed are subject to the interpretation and discretion of an unelected officialdom of appointed bureaucrats.
The Republic of 1789 is now a democracy infested with inter-conflicting tribal populism wherein cause matters less than winning. Nonetheless, the greatest threat to this nation’s vitality is its refusal to face and assess the actuals of the world. The standard practice (embraced at the highest level of intelligentsia) of creating a pseudo-reality founded on wanting, wishing, and hoping only services the false perception of righteous denial.
We Americans refuse to accede to the blatant historical manifest of reality: The strong will rule and the weak will submit. America either brazenly enforces its will or concedes. The rational and reasonable acknowledges the preference of persuasion over force; however, when persuasion fails to enable consensus, we (Americans) must realize our determinative obligation as the leader of the “free world” and yes, when required, decisively act to compel said role with military coercion and economic cogency.
In the ten thousand years of written history peace is the diminutive of experiences and war the overriding contrary. Despite our insistence on relegating a policy of martial resolve and prioritizing peace as the all-important strategy goal, peace resides, in fact only, intermittently between conflicts.
“Si vis pacem, para bellum,” a Latin adage translated, “if you want peace, prepare for war” although the nation recognizes military preparedness, the application of warring tactics, when measured against the benefits since the end of WWII, has been at a horrific cost in blood and treasure. This horrible loss was/is caused by the imprudent deduction of ill-conceived, foolishly contrived underwriting criteria devoid of sagacious sensibilities. Therefore, when a governing contextual is affixed to a legacy of wanting leadership, buttressed, and assisted, by a staff of ineffectual ideologically goaded disciples, fact and truth syntheses into factoids.
Of course, Russia meddled in the electoral process of 2016. Possibly, Putin thought he could sway and discern a beneficial outcome. However, for purposes of their politically motivated design, it is the Democrats that deliberately caused the post-election mayhem of present deflection. The Democrats instead should address the multiplex of everyday citizen concerns and the emerging conflict with North Korea. Putin and his Russians are for the most part a bothersome aside that do not “endanger our Democracy.”
The president’s speech in Poland was a masterful display of exceptional leadership. I am very proud of his definitive interpretation of America’s role in leading the “free world.”
“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” — we’ve all heard that adage sometime in our life. Well, President Trump has wisely chosen: “Lead.”