BEWARE OF THE FEDS – THEY ARE ARMED AND DANGEROUS!

10 10 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Noting the maxim (of my originate) that wisdom can only be measured in arrears, history has validated that those Americans that congregated in Philadelphia for the purpose of forming a more perfect union were very wise. They were not simply wise men for their time but wise men since their time as well as into the technologically enriched present.

Their legacy for wisdom is so dominate that the mainstream political parties of the present era each insist that the Founders’ ideals of liberty and freedom are their very own raison d’être. Interestingly, each party considers the Constitution of 1789 the very basis for their exceedingly diverse ideologically enhanced political manifestations.

Although it is also understood that there has been, is now, and more than likely will always be impediments, constitutional usurpers, disfigurements, and exceptions that work, for reasons purposeful, as well as unintended to diminish, abate, or subtract all together the Founders’ original ideals.

Regardless, the legacy of those Founders is so profound that the conceptual given amongst most Americans is that our government functions as a democratic-republic. Americans believe this conceptual given even if there is evidence to the contrary. The myth of America being the “land of the free and home of the brave” is so overwhelming that when the republic is seriously challenged, as for instance by the Obama administration’s most recent corruptive embarrassments, or when the meaningfulness of individual liberty and freedom are abated by statute, the populous prompted by a disengaged media, turns their attention to other less threatening concerns such as the corrupting influence of special interest — or whether a particular poll favors or disfavors some sort of popular ideal.

Humankind’s propensity for dysfunctional behavior is witnessed daily; history has documented such identical behavior for thousands of years. Either by purposeful design or by the naivety that prompts unintended consequences, people, possibly encouraged by a cause delusional and manufactured, or by some unrequited perception seeking restitution, will behave badly, even at the price of their detriment.

It is people that make up the pieces and parts that create, establish, and manage government. But then in my view, people have the right to self-destruct, it is equally understood that people will violate the law. But the government, although made up of people, must rise above the commonness of human failings, of personal regard; government must service the ideal that this country is a land of law not of man.

Our Founders understood the meaningfulness of such issues and concerns; therefore, in the interest of individual liberty and freedom, they founded a constitutional government. The Founders created a government of limited means, a government of checks and balances, a divided government wherein State sovereignty was a functioning part of keeping the central government in a place of restriction and constraint.

Well, less a few remaining vestiges, there is no limit to the power of the federal government. If the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare constitutional the populous can no longer pretend that there are any limits to the authority of the federal government.

In today’s news we have the Attorney General circumventing the truth before the House of Representatives, we have cause to believe that the Department of Energy, in cahoots with the Executive, breached the covenants of a contractual agreement so to service an ideological affiliation that should have been distanced by more than just protocol. Indeed, prudence suggests that when private enterprise is funded with taxpayer monies, politically motivated encouragement should have been deemed wholly inappropriate at inception.

The bequeath of a republic by the Founders to the people of the United States was and is a solid beginning; however, this history-making beginning cannot stand alone. The Constitution of this nation will always be under the siege of interpretation and implementation. The by-word for citizens when surveying and monitoring the workings of government is askance.

Remember, it was — until President Obama — the most liberal of progressives, Franklin Delano Roosevelt that by executive order locked up Americans of Japanese descent for the duration of WWII; he confiscated all their real property, denied them the right to vote, but not to die, fighting for the very nation that violated their rights as American citizens. Beware of governments, their power and prestige… all governments are lethal and they will bite…





OBAMA’S IDEAL OF CHANGE

31 03 2011

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…





CONGRESS 111…

17 12 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

Chicanery seems to be the natural behavior of a congress full of politicians; nevertheless, this “Lame Duck” session, this of this particular congress, this one is audaciously emblematic for its arrogant disregard. In other words, these progressives are bound and determined to enact their agenda. In their world view, skipping over or enveloping the clear message delivered by the voters in the last election (the loss of 63 congressional seats) is not an obligatory consideration of concern. Instead this congress regards the recent electoral results as the actions of ignoramuses and as a consequence the Democratic shellacking should NOT apply to these elected politicians. These “Lame Duck” participants, progressives all, are two-thirds of the three monkeys, one is hearing-impaired, the other is blind to the obvious, and the last monkey just cannot keep form putting its foot in its mouth. This congress is the very essence; the exact definitive of a government managed by officialdoms whose purposeful intention is the development and application of chicaneries.

Noticeably, this congress has finalized the Obama compromise; President Bush must have had a giggle over that. Withstanding President Obama’s repeated declarations of unfairness as to the effect of the Bush tax cuts, his reluctance to embrace Bush policies has made an abrupt U-turn. Now it seems the populous will benefit and jobs will be created…

The ringing concerns of Obama the candidate has been geared down to the reality of Obama the governor of a federal administration. Thus, Obama’s U-turn has a continuum of energy that will bend the political left turn into a conservative right; the president has acknowledged that the left turn was an economic dead end.

Note the clutter of nonsense created by the liberal progressives: Guantanamo is still open despite the passionately delivered pre-as-well-as- post election proclamations as to its closing. This inability to close Guantanamo flies in the face of Democratic leadership’s decisive conclusion that the existence of Guantanamo was unequivocally aiding the world-wide recruitment of Bin Laden style terrorism. That conclusion has been sidelined into the waste-basket of formerly held, but now accepted, as mostly rhetorical nonsense. Bush era tax-cuts reinstated. Terrorist are still being flown by CIA operatives to autonomous destinations for enhanced interrogation. The Afghan war is still being waged by drone and infantry. All of these Obama policies persuade me to wonder if Bush actually won a third-term in the name of Obama.

History is full of dead ideals and idealist. Every once in a while there is a phoenix of socialistically inspired dictums. This affection for what has been previously abandoned is often incased within a moral premise of fairness. I.e. Obama’s first two years of governing. This naively emotive approach traversing a dynamic ever existing contest normally leaps over the requirement of empirical evidence in favor of addressing the detrimental treatment (prompted by the rich, the republicans, and all persons, institutions, or inhibitors of liberal progressive policies) of the poor, the disenfranchised, and of course, the favored of the modern day socialist evangelical: The ever dwindling in numbers & influence middle class. Obama and his liberal progressives ostensibly address all challenges of governance with one prerogative of evaluation: How does this particular policy safeguard the interest of the poor and middle class? After all these progressives understand how important it is to buy their vote with special promises of favoritism.

As with all proponents of autocratic governorships who by logical deduction is also inclined to espouse a preferential elitist mentality. Their narcissistic component presumes and deduces that Descartes’, “Cogito ergo sum,” was specifically meant for them and indeed is the perfect purpose of their raison d’être. Clearly, the liberal progressive movement considers that these words of Descartes were written to declare and define their intellectual superiority. This assumption therefore must mean that the others that populate the nation state do not think; or surely, do not think as well. As such is taken as a fact, it logically follows that this assumptive reasoning (by the liberal progressives) must also serve as the underlying principle or basis of and for their intellectual preeminence.

The elitist of liberal progressive ideology are by explicit definition few in numbers. The very meaning of the few possessing intellectual superiority requires that the many or the common to be intellectually inferior. Since the few manifest sublime intelligence and the many clearly do not it is incumbent upon the few to lead the many. The presumption of elitist must be that voters are similar to domesticated animals wherein the many and the common do not know enough to understand what is best for them. So as a matter of virtuous regard the elite must harbor and safeguard the common.

But sometimes, in keeping with the example of domesticated animals, the common are hesitant and at times down-right noncompliant; this reluctance to comply with what has been decided by the elite as to what is in their best interest forces coercive techniques. A perfect instance of where the common simply do not know what is best for them is ObamaCare.

Obama and his confederates are shameless practitioners of the Machiavellian doctrine, “the end justifies the means.” This dedication by the liberal progressives to their agenda is always going to be a real and present threat to our constitutional republic. There can be no compromise with those of such political-economic differing.

Well, the 111th Congress is on their way out. I am looking forward to the 112th.





BUSH HAS PERSEVERED

12 12 2010

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.





THE MID-TERM ELECTION

5 11 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

The election was almost all it could be…

Thank goodness for the American people, the constitution, and the very-much-alive practicing ethos of Americanism! This election resulted in the clear revitalization of conservative ideals. The political party closest to conservative values is, as of January 2011, in control of the House of Representatives.

Hosannas! The Obama incumbents were thrown out… Now what?

So far, the Republicans have suggested retrograding spending back to the 2008 budget level. They have insisted on the Bush Tax cuts to stay in place. Repealing or retarding ObamaCare, taking another look at the recently passed legislation on financial services reform, and holding investigative hearings on various Democratic Party actions. Obviously, any actions by the congress to stop, retard, or diminish the legislative enactments of the last two years of liberal progressivism is a good thing. Nevertheless, the culprit extraordinaire is federal government spending. Suggesting that the 2008 federal budget was sufficient of a spending cut is just way too timid a suggestion.

The lead dog in that lineup of federal excesses is entitlements. If the Republicans play politics with this issue, if they talk out of the side of their mouth, if they lie or try to hide the issue in any manner, a dynamic third political party will emerge. I do believe that a majority of Americans wants the federal government, well any government, to operate within their budget.

There is a glossary of descriptive words that embodies the meaningfulness of fiscal conservatism: Good sense, rationality, sensibility, reasonableness, and prudence; these words all apply to governing. If these words are exempted from the application of governing, a general malaise will result. I believe such exemption has been the case of the Obama administration and brethren of progressive ideologues.

It is not that I think the Republicans or Democrats of old have not practiced the exemption of these essential operational descriptive(s). Oh no — but the Obama progressives have purposefully over-filled the cup. Their policy of left-wing excessiveness, coupled with damning the people’s thought on the matter, is the fuel that spiked the recent electoral rout. The legislative action of this congress’ liberal progressives in striving to apply the contrary, the direct antithesis of my glossary of descriptive words, are the act of finality that shattered the glass.

There are some immediate benefits heading in the conservative direction. One of the most outstanding benefits is that certainty is sure to replace vagueness, indecision, and doubt. Withstanding, the political positioning and posturing by both parties, for the 2012 elections every member of congress (because of the recent election results) understands that the American people want the spending significantly reduced and no tax increases. The American people want economic growth – not more entitlements. They want freedom and liberty – not more governmental intrusion into the lives of America’s individuals or its institutions. No more legislative movements to the political or economic left… enough of that nonsense — let’s get real and straighten out this nation’s problems!





THE RESURGENCE OF AN OLD HERESY

19 09 2010

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

11 09 2010

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…