THIS POLITICAL CONFRONTATION IS SERIOUS

Authored by William Robert Barber

I do think that in the foreseeable future the likelihood-of-result favors a series of very nasty political confrontations between our competing political parties. Indeed, the 2012 election, regardless of the victor, will not settle the abrasively aggressive behavior of the contending political ideologies. The facts of the matter will not settle the political argument because facts (by the ideologues) are bent to satisfy the particulars of ideological predetermination. Such ardent predetermination (for the believers) is coupled with an unshakable belief in the righteousness of their cause; therefore stymieing any rational tendency for counter-party consideration.

Currently, for the White House, because of a looming election, Obama’s reelection is the single dominant interest. By a default of priority, the interest of the nation is secondary because the ideological ethos of each political party cannot rationalize the reasoning of the other. As a consequence, conservatives and liberal progressives will always fail to understand the economic, fiscal, political, or even practical sensibility of the others’ political agenda.

The nation’s budgetary and debt-limit argumentative is not in its core a matter of negotiating variant plans. This quarrel between the Republican Conservatives and the Democratic Liberal Progressives is an ideological confrontation; debate over the abatement of the deficit is an ideological cause to engage. There is much more at stake for this nation state than reducing federal government expenditures for the 2011 and 2012 budget. In bold-black, graphically clear penmanship, the current political fight is over the definitive understanding of what kind of an American government we are going to have in January of 2013. The grand question in simple terms: Is this government of ours to be small and limited in operational scope as the Conservative desire? Or is the government to be large and unlimited in operational scope as favored by the Liberal Progressives? This is the essence of our nation’s disagreement and the answer will be affirmatively declared, for one or the other, post the count of the November 2012 Electoral College vote.

With President Obama’s recent reelection announcement, political gamesmanship is formally afoot. The Republicans have put forth their fiscal remedy. The Democrats, instead of designing a detailed plan of their own, have decided to sit back and disdainfully criticize. These liberal progressives have decided that fiscal disciple and reforming entitlements, for the general population, is confusing. Inclusive with the confusing nature of the entitlement issue is the general unpopularity of reform. If one considers that abatement or elimination of ‘nanny state’ policies will have measurable consequences for those dependants of entitlement funding, such as illegals, as well as those that pay no federal income taxes, those that believe government owes them a free education, and a stipend for living expenses, one can understand who the opposition is. Remembering that for the Democratic Party, less the illegal element now that ACORN is busted, this is their voting constituency. So instead of servicing the clear and present danger for the nation by helping to clear up the confusion or explaining the non-sustainability of the present entitlement programs, liberal progressives have determined that winning the next election by endorsing a policy of abandonment and denial, and promising a continuance of the ‘nanny state’ is their strategy for election victory in 2012.

The forthcoming national election will prompt scurrilous attacks; personal meanness, noting the President’s recent remarks, will be part of the Obama believers’ daily talking points. Prudent discovery of facts will be set aside as unwarranted and for the progressive politicians, the mainstay of their rhetoric will, in the majority, contain misdirection and half-truths. Considering the context of the Democratic Party leadership, one can righteously ascertain that rhetorical gunmanship is valued over truthfulness. I do predict that the upcoming election will be 100% negative. I also believe that provocateurs from the political left instilled with bloodthirstiness for victory at any price will nullify the effectiveness of civil persuasion, and the nation’s institutions will be forced to decide if this is a nation of laws or of man. Tolerance and consideration will be ostracized into suspension. This electoral process will be evidenced as never before for its dishonesty, bombastic hype, and statutory non-compliance.

Beware! The Obama inspired liberal progressive machine whiles striving to implement a European-style socialist society with one side of the mouth, with the other he will say what needs to be said. Our President has proven to be very flexible when it comes to his word and words in general; he is unscrupulous as to concerns for their factualism. His money raising reelection show is steamrolling its way through America’s highways and byways. Machiavelli, sit up in your grave and standby to witness Chicago’s brand of the end justifying the means!

OBAMA’S IDEAL OF CHANGE

Authored by William Robert Barber

The working suppositions of the Obama government are that more regulation is better than less, increasing the taxes of those who have more is not only a requisite to social justice but a moral initiative worthy of any confrontation, increasing the power of the federal government is the willfulness necessary to instill a liberal progressive policy, and that all of the these working suppositions are not only the very thesis of liberal progressivism but essential to the Obama scheme for meaningful change.

In the Obama world of ‘Change One Can Believe In,’ patriotism is a low priority. While Obama’s idea of social-economic fairness is a high priority, a greater, more powerful bureaucracy in partnership with unions is the essential engine that will power the doctrine of social-economic fairness.

The location of power within the United States preceding the progressive era was founded on the idea that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people it affects. Hence the states, counties, and cities played a much larger role in governing. But over time, and particularly since the rule of FDR, power has been ceded to the distant federal source. Now evidence demonstrates that although this transference of power has been going on enthusiastically for many years, this administration has far greater ambition than simply growing the size and scope of the central government. Obama insists on a transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations; he wants European integration wherein the United States would be part of a united Europe.

Let’s look at the evidence: European-style healthcare, welfare, carbon taxes, day care, college education… he even acts as a European espousing a Brussels-like foreign policy, mimicking a European approach to nuclear disarmament, and his reluctance to deploy US troops in a leadership role is a direct reflection of his ideal Euro-America.

Obama and his progressive confederates possess dangerous ideas. Their ideal America would abate growth, increase taxes (not exactly compatible factors), surrender America’s superpower standing, and trade our exceptionalism for the common denominator of being the same. Of course the Europeans might think of us more kindly; we might become more popular, the Russian and Chinese would gladly welcome us into their sphere of influence. I, of course, do not believe America’s role is one of subordination — indeed, the antithesis is true.

I believe that Obama and his acolytes are internationalists who have accepted the concept of a Brussels-led union wherein the ruling doctrine is that the nation-state must transcend individualism, freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the American rule of law in the interest of servicing policies that are inextricably tied to social justice.

All I see in Europe is a burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth, and rising unemployment. This has been the European experience for the last forty years. It is clear to me that American capitalism will win the day… unless the liberal progressives kill the hand that feeds them. And they are trying real hard with fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing, more regulation, and the stubborn insistence on taxing “the rich,” to snap off the very hand that feeds them.

I was inspired to write this blog-topic by Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament…

WHAT ARE THESE DEMOCRATS DOING?

Authored by William Robert Barber

I really want to pick on these Democratic politicians who just cannot get it into their brain housing group that they are on the losing end of a very material issue.

The issue of material concern consists of two separates that have a symbiotic connection: The first is the excessive cost of governing; the other are the public employee unions and their utility of collective bargaining as such pertains to satisfying the requirements of a balanced budget.

The gross federal & state taxable revenue has recently taken a negative downturn; the result of which has been an unrestricted exposé, a pictorially delivered rendering as to the bona fide cost of governing for all to review. The sequence of such a review is the immediate conjecture that the day-to-day, year-to-year cost of governing exceeds tax and fee income. The audit deduction deduces the fact that union expenditures in the form of salaries, benefits, and pensions are not only unsustainable but illogical. The lawful utility of collective bargaining by unions has handicapped negotiating by local and state governments to the point where unions have actually usurped the meaningfulness of elections. They limited the sensible ability of state/local government to lower operational cost to a nonoperational degree. Unions have had the effect of disenfranchising the duly elected from the implementation of prudent governing willfulness. They have purposefully intervened in the affairs of governing to such an extent, impairment is a discussed recourse.

The camouflaging or concealment of governmental liabilities has been hidden from first sight by politicians of both parties rather efficiently. That is until the Obama administration’s insatiable spending appetite forced a second look. Reality is that it was Obama and his socialist tendencies coupled with his progressive political beliefs that provided the most significant contribution to the conservative cause of limited government. It is not to say that President Bush and his republican majority did not try to throw taxpayer funds into the fire of the outrageous and stupid; but, unlike Obama, Bush failed to incite the conservative base. President Obama did manage to agitate the public; of course, the outrage was prompted by trillions of (investments?) spending dollars into governmental silliness.

The single goal of leadership is to be right; President Obama and his acolytes were wrong on way too many policies. It was Obama’s team that predicated unemployment would not pass the 8% mark as a precondition to passing the stimulus bill.

For decades, federal, state, and county public employee unions have bullied, cajoled, and negatively impacted their (fellow citizen) employers; they have challenged the ‘right to work’ environment and lost the contest. In the election of 2008 they elected Obama and a whole host of liberal progressives; they captured an overwhelming majority in the legislative branch of government. Nevertheless, by 2010 they lost the House of Representatives to the conservatives; they were befuddled and regressed into the explanation that unemployment numbers were simply too high as the reasoning of their shellacking.

Well, unemployment numbers were and are high because their policies do not work. Now they are doubling up on endorsing public employee unions; even Obama traversed into the fray with his concern that public employee unions are being illegitimately assaulted by Governor Walker.

Here is the fact: Democrats are lost in the desert of “once upon a time.” They are searching for the progressive promised land. But not only is Obama not Moses; he is caught between the purgatory of supporting business and limiting the growth of government, a workable policy or advocating a liberal progressive agenda that he knows will not create jobs nor raise taxable revenue. If he wants a political future he must swing to the right… but he just can’t do it.

JUST TELL ME THE TRUTH

Authored by William Robert Barber

It is amazing how we citizens accept “a culture” of untruthfulness from our elected or appointed officials; they purposefully disseminate their untruthfulness by means blatant, furtive, abstract, and ambiguous; wherein the only certainty of intent of and for these elected or appointed is, instead of educating or dutifully informing (their constituents), they utilize the facilitators of disinformation, misinformation, and general all-round horse-manure as their communicative contextual.

Particularly frustrating is the arrogance displayed in the execution of their nonsensicalness; they act as if such untruthfulness was the mundane-behavioral normative. Should there not be a law prohibiting any conveyance other than truthfulness by an elected representative to the public? It is a federal crime to lie to the FBI; but an elected official may convey less than the truth and nothing but distortion or misinformation to ’Joe public’ — free of penalty!

This practice (amongst the elected) of ignoring truthfulness in favor of other than the whole truth creates the intrinsically infested putrefaction that inevitably destroys our republic. Nevertheless, voters’ pique in this profoundly manifested behavioral dysfunctional has been brushed aside to the most common of consideration. Presently, because of the electorates’ naïve trustfulness of the political process and broad disregard of their citizenry-obligations, today, at this very moment, this “culture of untruthfulness” is viral and endemic — and for our republic life threatening.

Congress as an institution, the elected, as well as the appointed, are culpable of establishing this environment of circumlocution instead of transparent straight-talk. Our nation’s institutions are suffering from moral legitimacy because the practitioners of governing are less than truthful. There has been a demote reset of the moral denominator; expectations of virtuousness by the governed are impaired by secular dismissal, and the world turns on an axis of Machiavellian function rather than the principles established by George Washington.

Corruption is not a viable economic alternative. It will not work for anyone, including the corrupters. When an elected official conveys anything to the public that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the entire system of governing is adversely affected.

This is another solid reason why limited government is part of the solution; the smaller the government the less places for politicians to hide. There is no substitute for governing honestly, straight-up, and factually; the responsibility of such governess rests with the people. Rascals and empowerment is an elixir much more infectious than nicotine; and like nicotine’s effect upon the respiratory system, empowered rascals will destroy this republic.

THE PENDING CONFLICT

Authored by William Robert Barber

A clash is coming. This pending conflict over which opposing political ideal prevails is of paramount importance; the outcome will definitively define the operating meaningfulness of America. This forthcoming contretemps is as critical to the country’s future as the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. The victor defines this nation’s character, ethos, and legislative values for generations to come.

Interestingly, for all of us engaged in this ‘struggle-imperative,’ unlike other conflicts, this pending clash is not open ended. We participants know the exact term as well as the “définitif real” of victory — we also understand that defeat means the end of limited government as a viable concept. The American fortitude of existentialism inclusive of the spirit of American exceptionalism will be discarded in favor of the collective common denominator.

The contesting of the electorate’s heart and mind will start on January 5, 2011 and end on November 2, 2012. The political ideas of liberal progressivism versus conservative limited government principles will be debated in every neighborhood’s nook and corner. From the board room to the halls of academia, from shore to shore, throughout the nation; from the kitchen table to gatherings within the various governing locals: the people of the United States will be asked to bend an attentive ear to a persistent political message. Doubtlessly, the following will occur: Motivated by political advertising and the need to enhance readership or viewership, all venues of media will be taking advantage of the pending bonanza. Unions with lots of cash will summon the faithful so to declare their perspective, the ideologically inspired from the left to right political perspective will pontificate, politicians motivated by the reality of counter-interest victory will lustfully enunciate, President Obama’s “bully pulpit” will typify a persuasion that has run amuck.

Obama’s banner of liberal progressive legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare will be assaulted by the Republicans; the Dodd-Frank legislation is another target of Republican interest. The question is, can the 112 Congress approach all federal government spending, line by line, department by department, which of course includes all programs that would not exist were it not for federal funding, and specifically hound federal departments that simply duplicate function or whose function is deemed unnecessary be shut down?

The Democrats know that their current legislation is in danger only if they lose the presidential election of 2012; so their task will be to thwart all Republican non-funding tactics or formal legislative challenges until that election. Naturally, at the same time the Democrats need to build a positive political consensus amongst the voters as well as successfully fight off Republican efforts to dismantle their accomplishments.

I do believe that if conservatives do not sweep the next election — indeed, the sweep must include a super-majority in the two legislative branches — a politically conservative America will be politically stymied by the liberal progressive minority. From a strictly domestic perspective, liberal progressive in the garb of Democrats is not our only concern. If we citizens are not careful with our votes we will end a nation managed by legal opinions. Wherein congress is set-aside in favor of judicial considerations.

Once this nation accepts the government as the prime mover in all things and items of material value, the core of this nation will soften, our intestinal fortitude will no longer chose the courage demanded of leadership. American leadership will drift and flounder and at the risk of an ever increasingly dangerous world this nation will NOT adhere to its worldwide responsibilities. Instead, America will position itself into a bureaucratic-mediocrity wherein the United Nations will assume the role of world leader.

These next two years leading up to the election of 2012, are critical for this nation and its destiny; at risk is the very meaning of America. Additionally, the futuristic interruptive of liberty, individual freedom, and a truly representative limited-government is hanging in suspension awaiting resolution.

BUSH HAS PERSEVERED

Authored by William Robert Barber

We have most recently have been presented with a bipartisan legislative deal: the Obama-McConnell compromise. The liberal progressives are furious, the Republican leadership proud, Jim DeMint disappointed, and Charles Krauthammer appreciative for the column fodder.

As if a protagonist starring in a role written, directed, and produced by his own hand, Obama was in belligerent form when televising his success with the opposition. Calling his compromise partners “hostage takers” while scurrilously denigrating his liberal progressive base by labeling them “purist” ideologues.

Obama and his confederates acknowledge that compromise does mean and fits in as a descriptive of a big fat concession. It is a conciliation with their bête noir; a transparent conceding of many, once fervently held, beliefs. Pelosi and company recognizing compromise implies that the two years of stimuli and regulatory revamping has been an economic failure.

The recent federal and state elections, as pointed out by the President, were a shellacking, a definitive rebuke by the American electorate for the Democratic Party. And as Obama once loudly pronounced, elections do have consequences. A few of those consequences (for the Obama accolades) are eating their own words and affirming the compromise. The fare for such an affirmation with the Republicans is agitation for/by the left wing of the Democratic Party; to paraphrase, Obama has in effect suggested to his 2012 reelection staff, to let them “left-wing purists” bark at the moon.

The compromise, as I interpret, does mean a continuance of the Bush tax abatement and for those who die between now and 2012, the government is entitled to less of your wealth or quite possibly none at all. Despite these perfectly sensible affirmations, the American people are spending more money and supporting the everlasting unemployment cash for not working program. The federal government is teaching its citizens to enjoy more dependence on the government. This new entitlement is simply and only enacted to buy votes for the 2012 election. Regretfully, this buying of votes applies to both parties.

Interestingly, Obama now believes this deal with the Republicans will positively stir the economy and create jobs… hmm, he’s a few billion dollars late with this revelation.

AMERICA’S NORTH KOREAN POLICY

Authored by William Robert Barber

“Wish it was so,” is not a pillar, keystone, nor buttress to any construct. Wishing is not a tangible. Wishing though at times entertaining is a whimsical endeavor. Nevertheless, the foreign policy initiatives of this nation mimic the whimsical; furthermore, if such policy initiatives were applied as a surreal convenience, the resulting sum of efforts would be futile. There could be no more perfect example of the whimsical and wishful than this nation’s capriciously lengthy dialogue with North Korea.

President Truman decided it was in this nation’s interest to commit American blood and treasure to stopping the invasion of South Korea. So instead of dropping an atomic bomb or invading North Korea he and his generals, admirals, and politicians joined a United Nations endorsed plan. This plan was not tactically sensible or strategically sound. It was a mas-o-menos plan of pushing back the bully that pushed first. The invasion of the north upon the south was defended by UN forces (another descriptive for “let’s spill American blood”) as if this was a playground dispute.

Amazingly, to the chagrin of the political leadership in congress, the plan failed. American dead and wounded piled up. The North Koreans ran amok — it did not look good. Stage left enters General MacArthur. The general accesses the situation and executes a bold offensive (an amphibious landing at Inchon) that is so successful it pushes the North Koreans back to the Chinese border. Finally the dynamics of the war have abruptly changed; the invaders are pushed back onto the Chinese border.

However, contrary to MacArthur’s prediction, the Chinese enter the war by the thousands; Truman does not drop the atom bomb nor does he invade China’s mainland. Americans continue to be killed. No matter, Truman will not face the reality of a meaningful decision; MacArthur’s army and marines are overwhelmed and get pushed back… Americans continue to die. MacArthur is relieved of command. Thereafter, Truman’s term of office is ended; he retires to Missouri.

Enter stage right; Eisenhower is elected with the pledge that he will end the war. Note he did not say he would win the war. Well, he got that done. And the N. Koreans have abused this nation ever since.

In 1952, America failed in its obligation to eliminate a military aggressor. The crystal clear necessity was to ignominiously defeat the communist north. America settled for the wistfulness of convenience and the acceptance of an interlude instead of a victory. Now this gangster nation has weapons of mass destruction, distributed its technology, and will be a very real threat to the sector as well as the world for as long as there is a North Korea. Abuse has escalated to the deployment and possible detonation of a weapon of mass destruction. America has permitted an army of over 1 million strong to be managed by a rouge state and once again, we wish…

Of course this policy of “wish it was so,” continues; America is in this fix because we, despite our willingness to spill the blood of our people, spend the gold and silver of our treasury. We insist on evaluating the world not as it is empirically evidenced, but by how we wish it to be. It is as if we have produced, written, and directed a Pepsi Cola commercial wherein we conceive and implement our foreign policy. Well, at least we are not pledging to close down Guantanamo or procure our nation’s civil courts to adjudicate terrorist-killers of purposeful intent to kill innocents. At least we have not stooped to that sort of silliness and flagellation.