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.

THE MOST IMPORTANT OF MID-TERMS

Authored by William Robert Barber

America, as with any other representative government, governs by the will of the people and in keeping with such is defined as a nation of laws, not of men. The meaning of course being that humankind as proven explicitly vulnerable to amoral, immoral, and often dastardly behavior, man is untrustworthy. Hence the trust is placed in laws, not man.

Nevertheless, to place our trust in laws alone is not enough to guarantee our liberty. We have experienced the words of lawmakers and contrasted their words to their deeds. We have all noted the politician who says one thing to get elected and does another to please a special interest or an undeclared political agenda . We have learned not to naively trust in the motives or actions of political parties, congress, or the media, and certainly we know better than to enjoin willfully in the obedient believing of any governmental entity. The aggregate of all this knowing is a steadfast endorsement of askance and doubt as inherent to voter tangibles. The application of government mechanisms are of consistent concern and forces one, as a matter of due diligence as well as sensibility to verify, document, and contest. Distrustfulness is the fare of constancy between the government and the governed.

Some of the questions that this election will answer are: What does America represent to the world outside of this country’s geographical providence? What is the image of America in the minds of Americans? What is the American ethos and spirit? Alongside a vote for or against the Obama administration and its liberal progressive agenda is also, explicitly, a referendum on the preceding questions.

The many friends and enemies of America are watching for our election results. The world wants to know if this nation is now going to endorse Obama’s social, economic, and politically inspired philosophical agenda or turn decidedly against the ideology of liberal progressivism.

In this particular election, the meaningfulness of America, not just for us Americans, is being judged. Are Americans going to amend the traditional central-right ideology of governess and willfully endorse the Obama administration’s politically inspired leftist progressive governing? Or are Americans going to return America to its traditional sense of self? Are voters moving this nation to a European model or are we blatantly rejecting that model in favor of conservative governess?

This must be the most important mid-term election of the modern era… Soon the results will speak louder and clearer than ever before. The very future of conservative America is at stake!

THE OBAMA GAME

Authored by William Robert Barber

There is only one rule in the game of politics: There are no rules. Witness the nonsense Obama has contrived, wherein the President of the United States, leader of the Free World, has accused the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of using foreign funds for U.S. campaign activities. The president – without naming the identity of the perpetrator – says to an audience of well-wishers: These fund raisers take money from overseas companies, “So,” Obama explains, “groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they (U.S. Chamber of Commerce) won’t tell you where the money for the ads comes from.”

This diatribe, presented by President Obama and directed to the Republican Party, is utter nonsense! A series of complete lies, wholly untrue. Originated by a left-wing blog and taken up as if factual by the president is a living-breathing example of desperation. White House advisor David Axelrod is just as guilty in disseminating this baseless allegation. Obviously, for these two politicians there is no shame nor concern for breaching the law of dignified service. Both, Obama and Axelrod, as with most politicians, are only interested in winning the game… But in this particular, they must believe the electorate to be fools and imbeciles.

If this was the only breach of dignity and truthfulness; if Obama’s words of government transparency and bi-partisan persuasion matched the hand that he has played since his swearing in, these politically motivated void-of-truthfulness tactics might be less significant. The actual of his actions however have clearly demonstrated that the second coming of the light of the world is nothing more than another power motivated ideologue. A politician who, when measured by behavior, is much closer to Caesar than Moses. As evidenced by his most recent baseless lie, Obama will say and do whatever is needed to retain power.

We conservatives must prevail at this next election by a very large across the board majority…

OBAMA’S PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING

Authored by William Robert Barber

For thousands of years, mankind has influenced, reconfigured, synthesized, shaped, molded, and redirected nature’s naturalness. The inventiveness of man has discovered – and more importantly, utilized – the energy of fire beyond the wildest imagination of the original discovers. The organizational skill of humankind has engineered monolithic pyramids and built the metropolis of today. Imagination and curiosity have provoked and inspired the process of thought into sophisticated philosophies; science has solved problems of perplexing dimensions. Civilization has advanced.

As a perfect example of the advancement of civilization, the founders of this nation state created and established a constitution to guide its constituents through the expected political, economic, and conflicting entanglements anticipated in the business of governing. Such a constitution was the empirical proof of mankind’s ability to compromise special interest particulars of the few for the concern of providing a greater good for the many. There is little wonder that numerous Homo sapiens living in the present would reason that government and governing is nothing less than another achievable challenge.

Therefore, leaders of a special persuasion have taken this challenge on in the belief that by organizing the operational scope and power of government to suit their ideological prospective, the beneficiaries (ostensibly the people) would, per pragmatic deduction, welcome the result regardless of the means.

Hence attestation emerged wherein the meaningfulness of the constitution could be translated and interpreted to suit an ideological prospective. That in keeping with assorted translations and interpretations of the constitution, leadership representing a particular ideology, would maneuver and manipulate the governing systems to configure and fit their purpose. Interestingly, these ideologues respective of their special interpretive all acted in the interest of the people; not one persuader suggested a motive of personal gain; not one acted to promote the improvement of the rich. All acted for the benefit of the common and poor.

While configuring the meaningfulness of the constitution along the ideals of their progressive agenda, Obama and his administration of progressives are imposing their ideological standard. Once again the published motivation is one of fairness for the common and the poor. They viciously point out the rich and the corporations as the villains of society. They note greed as the transgressor, positioning fairness of equity and the righteousness of their political-economic policies as the sublime counter alternative.

As if intoxicated braggers, for the Obama progressives, the sobriety of sensibility has been diluted by the toxicity of their leftist elixir. For these believers, capitalism is the culprit of preference, conservative ideals the enemy, and Machiavellian precepts a necessary tool of the moment. Their solution is wealth distribution via a hyper-progressive tax policy, tighter federal regulation, the abatement of fossil fuels in favor of green energy, preferring government subsidized entitlements to the American tradition of individual acceptance of responsibility for one’s livelihood, and in the finality the substitution of a republic for an oligarchy form of governing.

The policies of Obama are beyond challenging — they will not work. His ideals of fairness are incinerating harsh and bitter friction between the social, ethnic, and economic classes of Americans. His promises exceed his ability to implement. His ideals are best discussed in the closed-loop safety of a university; his allegiance to unions a betrayal of good sense. The ideals of Obama governess will not create a positive economic or political environment; they will only drain the treasury, siphon the patience of the American people, and weaken this nation.

THE RESURGENCE OF AN OLD HERESY

Authored by William Robert Barber

Winston Churchill wrote that “Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.”

Adam Smith is considered the father of modern economics; he wrote about the “invisible hand” of free enterprise. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are credited with creating an economic, political, and philosophical basis for state control or ownership of all material resources and assets. In the present, the liberal progressives of the Obama brand have chosen a synthesis between Smith and Marx. Their Obama brand is heavy on state control and light on free enterprise.

Obama is a socialist. But most of all, he is a politically inspired leftist zealot; he will do or say whatever is necessary to attain or retain his power. Over the last hundred years, this nation has leaned far to the political and economic left; plus, if one considers the validation of the last presidential election, one could reckon conservative principles mortally wounded. As a consequence, Obama and his acolytes accepted the last two presumptions as truthful, so plotted and planned the coup de grace to American capitalism. Of course the progressives along with impairing capitalism also wanted to rid America of its sense of exceptionalism. So not to offend its brother and sister nations, it also wanted America to cede its pride and unilaterally denominate its power and prestige.

I do think there is a common thread, distinction, or predominate hue amongst socialist, dictatorships, and Obama’s liberal progressives. As a matter of procedure and process, all capital mandated by legislation or edict in the form of tax, license, or fee must first funnel thru the federal treasury before distribution to dedicated entities or concerns.

Obviously, this transactional funneling of cash aside from promoting begging and corruption is the central government’s means of exacting retribution, rewards, and absolute control over the states, counties, cities, and therefore the people.

For those of us who believe that society exists for the benefit of individual people, that government intervention in the interest of the collective is unwarranted coerciveness, and that there should be no constraints by the government as to individual achievement…beware!

If free enterprise is the exceptional basis of Americanism then there is a resurgent’s of a heresy. This heresy, for a substantial portion of the populous, has an instant emotional appeal. The thesis of this heresy is fraught with stimulating calls to and for societal reformation. The context of this heresy required Wilson, Roosevelt, FDR, and the Obama government to use heretofore extraordinary methods and means to exact its ideological agenda. The empathy for this heresy is global in scope. It is well regarded in all political environments. The Europeans love it. The heresy is embedded in universal theology and particularly popular amongst the academic intelligentsia.

The heresy is founded on the premise that the lack of equal status be it social, material, or political is the root of all human negatives. Hence egalitarianism (the heresy in subject) is the universal answer. And most importantly, the political exactness of this egalitarian belief is that the state is the best and final arbiter of any and all nuances, definitions, or particulars of and for policy implementation. Although feigning concerns of social and economic injustice the expediters of this heresy are focused on politics and hell-bent to attain power.

The heresy has and does have many differing names: socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and within the last 150 years or so, progressivism. All of these “isms” profess economic, political, and legal egalitarian virtues. The ethos of this heresy is premised on an oligarchic elitism. Whereby; ostensibly, in the interest of the collective community, those few who ‘knowingly understand the meaningfulness of material issues and values” will lead the many who know far less.

The newest version of this heresy is Obama-ism. The president and his confederates of political progressive persuasion have cleverly traversed their way into power. They managed their entrée the ole fashion way…they got themselves elected. Now their heretofore campaign rhetoric has run into the real world; wherein, smartly expressed and cleverly designed falls anemically short of required. Within the Obama economic team, academic theory has run its course, predictions failed there delivered with zest benchmarks, billions of dollars have been spent with very little to no results. The cry for the empirically measured is pushing and pulling it way onto the center front of the economic-political mainstay. The Obama economic policy is being dissected, deciphered, and dismissed as counter-productive, wasteful, costly, misdirected, and possibly even counter-intuitive.

Withstanding the measure and failing grade Obama persists…well, November is just around the corner.

POLICY MEETS GOOD SENSE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Certainly I cannot confirm, nevertheless, my assumption is that within the mindset of a liberal progressive there is a compelling sense for moral righteousness; this self-determined moral sense of doing what is righteous forms the basis of a liberal progressive’s obligor of service. It is this moral determinative of righteousness that kindles the ideal, the exceptional, the reasoning to their often indiscernible, too wit.

Liberal progressives envision themselves as the modern paladin; a champion of fairness, social justice, enablers of “a level playing field;” they are the separator, the benchmark, the contrast from the normative base and common. They are the intelligentsia of cognitive all-knowing. Wonks who possess the utility of sublime meaningfulness, these liberal progressives, out of their sheer sense of moral righteousness, know, it is best and in the interest of the common good that they govern those that know less.

For the liberal progressive, the presumption of cognitive all-knowing is the intrinsic precursor, an intellectual predeterminative that applies to all political and socio-economic problem-solving. It is this ideal of moral fidelity to righteousness that intrinsically fuels a progressive’s contemplation, analysis, and conclusiveness.

By means of gradual intellectual stimuli layered by years of scholarly affect or the natural evolving of a parent’s initial prospective, and possibly the sublet persuasion of a teacher or mender; regardless, the parts and pieces aggregate into the result and a liberal progressive mind-set is created.

Somewhere along this line of aggregating parts and pieces, the methodology of logical deduction is overwhelmed by the comforting assurance of predeterminative beliefs. Let’s utilize the Obama administration’s approach to solving the challenges brought about by the present economic turndown:

The recession preceded Obama’s oath of office by about a year; in February 2008, G. W. Bush, with the support of a Democratic Congress, established a $168 billion stimulus. Larry Summers and Peter Orszag endorsed the policy, noting that this and any stimulus should be “timely, targeted and temporary.”

By the third quarter of 2008, the GDP fell by 4% and the financial meltdown finalized any hope of economic recovery. Stimulus I failed. Not deterred, Stimulus II moved into execution, this time the amount was $814 billion. Summers now promised that this cash-influx would have a 1.5 “multiplier” effect on GNP growth, not to be outdone; Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein infamously predicted that this stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%.

The Federal Reserve had its own unprecedented monetary stimulus with cutting interest rates near zero and purchasing 2 trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities as well as other assets of unknown market value.

Congress, not wanting to seem disengaged from the crisis of the moment, created other cash giveaways of its own design: The $8,000 home-buyer’s tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and unemployment pay extended to 99 weeks, and cash-for-clunkers.

In the end of the end, the government has never before spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation and received in turn so very little. After nearly 3 trillion in federal debt, we still have over 15 million unemployed.

Now, after all of this evidence and fiscal testimony, what does the Obama administration and the liberal progressive majority in congress want for this nation? Well, more stimulus! Their reasoning is that the stimulus was too small. The “because” part of their failure to address the economic turndown is particularly insightful; they say that the Republicans just respond with “no” and do everything in their power to block their efforts. Imagine, the Democrats control the entire government and it is the Republicans who blocked their problem solving agenda!

I wonder, considering his government’s failure to stimulate the economy by the means employed before and after his inauguration, will its economic team push on with more of the same? Will there be a continuum? Will the basis of Obama’s progressive ideological inclination overwhelm the empirical evidence that indicates a contrarian initiative to spend and tax as a solution?

I think that if one looks to his constancy of trashing business and bankers as greedy SOBs, calling out entrepreneurs as nothing less than rotten special interest, and obstacles to his plans of “transforming” American society, more than likely Obama is committed to his ideological agenda.

Recently, at a Labor Day event, the president said, “anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up, they just haven’t studied our history. We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness.”

How’s that for restoring the confidence of the average business person? All this president seems interested in is creating uncertainty and doubt. In the tax-and-spend world of Obama, his most recent contradiction is that he wants to cut taxes on capital because the economy needs the stimulus — then he wants to raise taxes on capital that he says won’t hurt growth… hmm….

At the top of this article I noted the liberal progressive sense of moral righteousness as an a-priori of cause. I now suggest that their ideologically founded predeterminations have corrupted their ability to tackle the real-world requirement of adaptation to contrary empirical evidence. Hence the ability of a liberal progressive to implement an economic policy not harmonious with their guiding ideology ranges from extremely difficult to impossible.

Obama and his confederates will not allow, even at the expense of the nation’s interest, evidence to the contrary of their political prospective to alter their actions. So let’s throw the bums out of office…

RANDOM THOUGHTS…

Authored by William Robert Barber

THE AFGHAN CONFLICT

When I hear pundits, reporters, and journalists speak of the never-ending war in Afghanistan, I am a bit puzzled by the meaningfulness of their apparent frustration. Hasn’t this nation of ours, even before its independence, been steadfastly engaged in violent conflict? If Jamestown of 1619 was the beginning of our nation’s English dominated heritage, hence a reasonable starting point to mark the first violent conflict between 1619 and 2010, how many wars, lethal conflicts, police actions, battles, insurrections, civil uprisings, and violent engagement has this nation of ours participated in? So, if we have been in Afghanistan for these many years, the length of this particular engagement should not be of particular concern. With time as its witness, history has proven that if it wasn’t Afghanistan, it would simply be in a different geography and name.

History has documented, not only for America, that armed conflict is a constant. The only variables are intensity and geography. The issue of concern, for pundits, reporters, and journalists cannot be the length but the reason.

SUMMERS, GEITHNER, ROMER – THE OBAMA ECONOMIC TEAMS

On August 3 of this year, Geithner soberly communicated that the $862 billion government stimulus was still rolling out, business investment was booming, and the economy was poised for sustainable growth. Really! The treasury secretary along with the Obama economic team actually believes their lying eyes. The economic team endorsed a Keynesian economic application to this recession. In essence, the Keynesian approach plus the Obama twist is to print more money and give said printed money away to unionist friends. Of course the Obama twist includes a giveaway to union projects, empathetic political affiliates — and by no means leaves out in the cold their overweight pension impaired bureaucracies.

According to WSJ’s Review & Outlook, Geithner suggested that “government spending can stimulate growth by triggering private demand”, that “tax rates are irrelevant to investment decisions”, that “waves of new regulations can be absorbed by business with little impact on costs or hiring”, and that “politicians can assail capitalists without having any effect on the movement of capital.” Hmm…

President Bush and his economic team, headed by Secretary Paulson, also strutted unabashed in the same economic direction albeit, timidly, with much less of the taxpayers’ cash. Nevertheless, the financial implication was exactly the same waste of money / add on to the federal deficit. Culpable in all of these spend-more policies of Bush & Obama is congress and the aggressive yea votes of both political parties; amazingly, the spending continues as if rain is not wet.

A majority of elected representatives, for a very long time to the present, from one election to another, have successfully navigated thru the self-created shoals and reefs of what they say to get elected versus what they do once in office. The experience indicates that a politician’s loyalty to ideology, political party, and getting reelected trumps representing the common prudent interest of their constituents.

THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY

The time maybe close at hand to form an independent political party; this formation is still out there in the distant future. Presently, we have a choice between the Republican and the Democratic Party; of the two, I choose the Republican. But I swear, if they screw this up like they did the last time…