THE PROGRESSIVES LOST THE ELECTION AND HERE’S WHY

6 12 2016

Authored by William Robert Barber

What, how, why, etc. is the truth? Exactly how in the world did Donald Trump win the presidency of the United States? No, no, it, that could not have happened; that cannot be the truth. I’ll force myself back to sleep assured that upon wakening the bad dream will void itself from my reality. Such is the mental state of liberal progressives striving to grasp the truth of the Realpolitik.

What these men and women, boys and girls of leftist persuasions, do not comprehend is actually stunning. They think of themselves as the intellectually disposed and as such, the sovereigns of cognitive thought and indisputable purpose. On balance they have assumed the omnipotent congruence of knowing what’s best for society in general and for their fellowmen in particular. Many teach in renowned colleges and universities; they graduated from law school, practiced a lifetime of politics, personally know all the right and honorable, fundraise amongst rock stars and celebrities, and possess Barbra Streisand’s personal cell phone number.

However, they are actually playground bullies: For years, the clique gathers every day to reinforce their dominance. They define racism, discrimination of all sorts, sexism, and what should not be said, thought, or reflected.  Amid the comfort of their élan these chosen segregate, they imply, they discern, and have metaphorically, repeatedly, forced palms out upon the chest of the common… well, the common have had enough of being bullied.

Essentially, these progressives lost the election because the liberal leftist policies of President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi cannot freely function in a republic and will never effectively operate in the real world. Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, disability claims and welfare amok, unlawful illegals’ roaming within protection zones, and the insanely egregious regulations put upon business small and large, is bullying on steroids. Throw in the aggression of North Korea, China, Russia, and that ridiculous non-treaty with Iran: the common have had enough.

Of course I do not want to educate the progressives…





THE PRACTICE OF STATUTORILY COMPLIANT CORRUPTION

20 08 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

Be it civil or criminal, we all understand the meaning and consequence of breaking the law. When one speaks of corruption, normally the word applies to governments, organizations, or some closed loop entity. But not many of us have considered the meaning or consequences of “statutorily compliant corruption” (or SCC) wherein the perpetrator has not violated any civil or criminal statute… nevertheless, an injustice or circumvention of societal concurrence has been committed.

When congress submits its approved annual budget and then spends billions of taxpayers’ monies in off-balance sheet-in-addition-to budget appropriation, is this an overt corruptive act?

When federal immigration laws are selectively enforced, is this not a corruptive manipulation of existing law?

When a politician is elected because of the promise not to raise taxes and then touts legislation that does exactly that — is this betrayal NOT a pure example of SCC?

Barney Frank told us that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and critical to the government’s obligation to insure a parity of fairness. Is it not true that Senator Frank and Dodd, with the aid and assist of the now President Obama, insisted on the veracity of obligation in the concept of government residential subsidy? Additionally, I recall that with purposefulness and premeditation these politicians, along with a majority of Democrats, sang the praises of Fannie and Freddie as they fought off the Bush administration’s efforts to wind down these entities. Clearly, Fannie and Freddie are not now – nor were these entities then – financially sound. It would have been prudent to de-leverage, impair, and rescind the authority and function of these quasi-government entities. Is the conduct of these three senators simply a matter of ignorance? Is it that they were simply too stupid to analyse the going ons? Or were these senators simply garnishing support within their base, not thinking all of the consequences? Did their actions fall within the definition of SCC?

Often enough false pretense is the actual ethos of the act of SCC. The motivations for extending these lies vary in degree and type. However, the disseminations of outright falsehoods seem to have the one motivational commonality: The perceived benefit of political or pecuniary gain. The process of implementing SCC includes a state government’s issuance of bonds without full and transparent disclosure, to the traditional tactics of government and corporate misinformation and disinformation. There seems to be no shame as to the lengths of such corruptive behavior and from time to time there isn’t even a discernable, rational, reasonable aim of the practice. Obviously, in these cases, logic and deductive reasoning are deleted by the lustful passion of ideological inspiration wherein malice is the intent and mischievousness the means.

All of us could, by simply reading the newspaper, easily find other instances of SCC practices within our governing and corporate systems. Our society has become very tolerant of malfeasant behavior; not just from our sports heroes, celebrities, or family members, but, most disconcerting, from our elected and appointed government officials. I am concerned with the ease pundits accept the less than stellar behavior of our elected representatives. Frankly, I am bit perplexed as to the reasoning and readiness of forgiveness for our elected officials ethical shortcoming. Maybe that is because there is no reasoning, but only the expectation of less.

The infection of “statutorily compliant corruption” has penetrated unevenly into the varied demographics of our society. Is it simply about the money? Does power have such sway that one is willing to lose one’s honor over the trivial of fame and cash? Why does one, a graduate of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other such notable institutions believe that skimming close to the line of illegal is acceptable?

Possibly, one could draw a parallel between the numbers of law school graduates, the proliferation of legalized gaming, the number of divorces, fatherless families, the glorification of the flourishing illicit profession of selling cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, the number of teenage pregnancies, the outrageous number of abortions, the largeness of all governments, the permissive thus imprudent conduct of governing leadership in relation to government’s fiscal status, the commonplace of government deficit spending, and the immense expansion of federal/state socio-economic entitlements.

The evil that erodes the goodness from this great nation is a process of piece-by-piece deterioration of our moral ethos. When the cultural mores of the nation’s professional class determines that the object of winning trumps the means, as long as those means do not breach criminal or civil statutory requirements, America the exceptional will blend into America that once was.

The behavior of “statutorily compliant corruption” is much more dangerous to the veracity of this nation’s lawfulness than an overt criminal act. America is the shining light; we must maintain its brilliance by never compromising the nation’s spirit or moral ethos.





THE OBAMA-DODD-FRANK FIASKO

2 07 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

Respective of my often made assertion that the Obama administration, along with the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, is an ideologue of liberal progressive doctrine; noting my declarations that Obama is a socialist whose ideal is a plutocratic style to governing. I am still somewhat baffled by the actions and pleadings of his high-ranking supporters.

Do they so misjudge the cultural norms and existential integrity of the American people that they believe they can roughshod downright stupid legislation into law? Do they really believe they can do such things free of resistance? Do they think they can outrun the federal deficit or even the reality of the rising cost of ObamaCare??

The damage to business productivity incorporated within the Dodd-Frank financial fiasco (the title of a WSJ article dating July 1) is self-evident. Could this legislation possibly be enacted? Are we Americans actually going to allow legislation this counter-intuitive to commercial sensibility to become the law of the land? Realizing that the legislation, though written into the form and content of law, is wholly subjective, it purposefully allows the interpretation of the law’s meaningfulness to a committee of unelected regulators. And those are the regulators that will judge the sum of the law’s effect and result. What?! Are we crazy???

The very people that – by their own direct action – helped to bring about the so-called financial crisis are the authors of this new legislation? Who in their right mind would allow these big government advocates-anti-capitalist leftist the authority to write legislation that is so damming to the very business structure of this nation state? Well, I guess we know the answers…

The Obama administration is anti-business and anti-profit; hence they are anti-sensible. Obama declares many untruths at will, embellishing and misdirecting at his on discretion. He denies his own counter-to-economic viability transgressions by simply stating that it could have been worse. He calls out the Republicans as politicians while acting out his leftist political polemics, and at every given opportunity he blames Bush.

This Obama fellow is acting out his role as president but has run out of viable script. His director/writer must be on vacation because he is slipping in the polls. The producer of Obama the President is only interested in the election of 2010 and 12. The Democratic Party is nervous. But Obama, undaunted, seems to believe in his own mythic invulnerability — or he is lost in the wanderlust of his own quest? It might quite possibly be a combination of both….

There are three distinctively factual realities that if voided would impair American sovereignty, hence America’s leadership role. The first is this nation’s requirement to embrace a consistent policy of always maintaining unmatched military superiority. The second is as the largest most dynamic consumer market in the world. Because our nation buys more than any other in the world, we encourage – almost compel – the sellers to American consumers to buy our debt, invest in our infrastructure, purchase our bonds, real estate, and equities. Such international investment strengthens the business scope and veracity of this nation’s economic platform. The third is the fact that this nation is the most innovative, hard-working, and practical in application, direct to purpose and design business network that has ever existed. It is the American concept of implementing business maxims that has built what is known as the “American Dream”. American business is internationally represented by an amalgamation of sophisticated industries, all servicing the buy/sell needs of an ever more demanding world market.

The Obama administration, pushed and pulled by Dodd and Frank, does not enthusiastically encourage such factual realities; indeed, I adamantly believe that the liberal progressives ideologically founded disdain for profit making, as well as the traditional American expressions of liberty and freedom, restrict their mind-set to accept capitalism as the economic system of this country. Obama believes that capitalism confronts and erodes the power of an omnipotent central government and thus endangers the industry of entitlements.

Such conclusions declared above emphasize even more why these persons of leftist, liberal progressive, socialist persuasion must be detached from power…