Authored by William Robert Barber

In the days of old, when wooden ships cleaved the brine and canvas sails captured the wind, a time when warriors, ruled by marital kings, crossed the moat, breached the safety of castle walls and with cold steel in hand challenged the dark unknown, the law rested with the mighty and the lawless were the usurpers. That is until usurpers became the mighty.

The presumption of that age was that the all powerful minority knew better than the common; and besides, most importantly it was understood that the minority would protect the majority against dragons known, unknown, or invented. Though the minority was ignorant, bane, and unintelligent, such assessment mattered little because the majority was even more so. Thus, the little less than totally ignorant ran roughshod over the totally ignorant. The guiding theory was that the majority of the people would submit their being to their corporal lord, their soul to God, and their labor to their betters.

During the Age of Enlightenment, technology stirred alternatives to the heretofore agrarian lifestyle that was solely supported on the rule of serfdom. The long-bow at Agincourt proved the equality of archer to knight; skilled labor built glorious artful edifices and merchants established a lucrative global trade. The real laggards in the abatement of ignorance in favor of intellectual illumination were leaders of kingdoms and the captains of religion.

Their means of suppressing inquisitive intellect was very simple: Script the law of the land and the bible in Latin. Of course these oppressors of reasonableness and sensibility, at the penalty of fire, also forbade the translation of Latin into English.

Today the majority still submits to the minority — but under certain terms and conditions. Instead of the ignorant being lead by the little less than ignorant, we have the common being confronted by the omnipotent intermediary of government. The government of the United States has over the last hundred years blossomed into a Byzantine bureaucracy of departments, agencies, and committees that are entrenched in cities, counties, districts, and state and federal groupings of political authority. This growth of government with all of its ambiguities, complications, and contradictory complexions was not and is not a result of necessity but a premeditated defense by the entrenched forces of this country’s liberal progressive plutocracy. It is these entrenched forces that act against the overtly definitive covenants intrinsic to this nation’s constitution.

These constitutional covenants were and are designed to limit the power of the central government. Such limitation is encapsulated within the citizens’ persistent covet for liberty and freedom.

The powerful no longer insert Latin to restrict interpretive understanding but instead the enigma of legalese; they purposefully elevate the non elected regulators to the status of statutory implementer of lawfulness. They write laws and vote on laws not even read because the purpose of the laws is to suppress liberty and individual freedom, supposedly in favor of the collective interest of the whole. The determination of what is in the interest of the many is proclaimed by a committee of the few.

Obama and his plutocrats must be stopped…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democrats are desperately trying to put the evidentiary round into the politically advantageous square. For these liberal progressives, their much touted theoretical and conceptive principles of “change we can believe in” have, with a deliberately sounding smack, run into the tactical reality of actual governing.

Withstanding the excessive taxpayer borrowing prompted and enacted by the Bush government, this nation, under the Obama government, is scheduled to spend a trillion and half more than it receives. This Obama deficit however is traversing through the highways and byways of an economy with high unemployment and low tax harvesting. The alternative to the Obama plan of purposeful excessive spending as an economic cure is to cut spending, lower taxes, extend the Bush tax cut, eliminate regulatory overreach, and enable small business growth. Of course that conservative economic alternative to the Obama economic scheme is an ideological atheism to the liberal progressives. Their response to such a proposal would be that even if such an alternative worked, it should not be implemented because it is fundamentally unfair. They would elaborate that the unfairness rests with working families and union members, and benefit the rich over the poor — naturally in their world of the theoretical and conceptive, the rhetorical claim of unfairness is sufficient proof, thereby eliminating the time consuming madness of further investigative debate.

This great rich nation of ours creates a revenue cause for over a trillion dollars in taxes, fees, penalties, and other etcetera contrivances; nevertheless, congress whether flying the red or blue flag, continues to overspend. Clearly, congress has developed an uncontrollable spending habit and intervention by the American people is required.

Our government representatives cannot agree on a solution for Medicare and Social Security but they did vote in another entitlement with ObamaCare. Does any of that make sense at all? It isn’t as if the current and projected federal deficit is the only financial negative facing this country. All of the federal entitlement programs are broke or going broke. Federal, state, and private pensions are seriously underfunded. Then of course, there is all that oil in the Gulf.

The thesis of big government is under fire because it is not able to bridge the distance from promise to result. The promise, as more and more Americans comprehend, was no more than a ruse to retain or attain elected office. The problems have added up and the American people will not be hustled by any emptier campaign promises.

Now I am really going to stretch one’s imagination and suggest that the problem is 80% solved by passing a constitutional amendment for term limits. No more than two terms in any one office is the limit.

Within the grand scheme of political history, the many is lead by the few. The few, with even fewer exceptions, fight to remain in office. For serving politicians to join the ranks of the many after the taste, feel, and smell of power is (for the politicians) worse than going from first class to coach. The prestige of being in power is so intoxicating that relinquishing its ambiance of gravitas for the wholly and often boring mundane, reeks of distasteful acceptability.

Therefore, the career politician must be forced out of power; he or she will never withdraw on his or her own volition. The case for term limits if solely determined as an anti-corruption measure is sensible. Nevertheless, no matter how effectual the elected, it is an imperative of an honestly managed government to regularly turn over its elected. Time in office only engenders the means, negatively influences the legislative culture, and affords the opportunity for institutional corruption.

Of course, I wish we could devise a distribution system to eliminate global hunger…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Looks like the Obama inner circle of all powerful insiders havs slipped, stumbled, and fallen into a puddle of Chicago-style political muck. This time, the smartest of the smart have created a wholesomely negative issue, solely on their daft contrivance. Surely, given a few more days, the chief of staff, a sitting governor, a former president, and the presidential press secretary can huddle and blame this on Bush.

In spite of all the editorial dancing by enterprising novelist within and outside of the administration, the truth has raised its head above the chaos of politicking — and is biting into the Obama brand. Despite the solidly delivered Obama election pledge of a transparent above the political fray government, politics as usual have identified themselves within the Obama camp. Once again a principal politician feigned hopefulness when in pre-election mode — but delivered politics as usual in practice.

A citizen might call this an excellent example of fraudulent inducement. But then of course the media, the president’s lawyer, notable politicians, an array of appointed and once appointed would discount the charge of fraudulent inducement as “simply politics as usual”.

Of course the president has been under pressure. The North Koreans’ have decided to redefine their sea borders and in order to establish this new sector of sovereignty, their leadership decided to sink a South Korean vessel, killing 46 people. Naturally, Secretary Clinton voiced a complaint. She clearly was upset with the North; and as a consequence she articulated a no-nonsense response to Kim Jong Il’s aggression, which was globally broadcast and convincingly implied the cold sternness of Obama disappointment in the North Korean hostile action. This state department declaration was coupled to the notion that this act of violence could not go unattended. Sarcastically, that of course sent shivers down the spine of the martially aggressive North Koreans and certainly satisfied the concerns of the 46 South Korean families who had just lost loved-ones. This half-hearted, cowardly approach to a clear military provocation demonstrated the level of US resolve for the Chinese and focused the Japanese on the real-time risk of relying on America’s willingness to protect Japan.

For all intensive purposes, Iran will soon add the atomic bomb to its arsenal of weapons. The attaining of this weaponry will validate Iran within the geo-political sector. It will establish Iran as the premier terrorist support nation and bond Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon into the Syria-Iran axis. As a collateral benefit to the madness of Iranian foreign policy, a policy that fits in perfectly with the Obama-Clinton ineptness and mind boggling disregard of the palpable, Obama offers weak disputatious of how the world should be. The discernable of what is offered amongst the midst of international diplomacy is the Obama policy of demonstrating American weakness at every opportunity. How many times does this nation state turn the other check and say (per TelePrompTer) “do it to me again, please”? This Obama-Clinton doctrine isolates Israel even more, negating even the fanciness of peacefulness.

But then, quite possibly, I might be too harsh. The president or ‘the enlightened one’ demands only one particular: that all nations, regardless of their varied and splintered Socio-religious-economic-political variables, simply inhale his elixir of Obama persuasion. If only these parts and pieces would adhere to the truth… the light and the way of Obama belief that the world will be nuclear free, Palestinians will gleefully enjoin with Israelites, Korea will unite, poverty will be stricken by the cheerfully given sharing of wealth, green energy will replace fossil, and Mexicans will stay in Mexico.

Offering the endorsement of a far flung network of liberal progressive intelligentsia, Obama is mystified as to the why-fore of any hesitation by his counter parties. After all, the UN stands at the ready — and according to Obama this is the forum for multilateral agreement. Additionally, he, the leader of the Western alliance, has personally pledged the tangible fact that George W is no longer president; plus he has assured the world that the US is no longer the cowboy unilateralist. Noticeably, the Russian and Chinese love the Obama Doctrine of “let’s all get along” by leading his department of state by the noose, whiles every now and then kicking him in his rear.

Well, there are these midterm elections…


Authored by William Robert Barber

What has happened to our government? Is it that congress, pushed, pulled, and prodded by Liberal Progressives over the last hundred or so years, has successfully changed the ethos of American thought? Was the impact of FDR’s successful socialistic agenda far greater than realized? Has Jimmy Carter’s naiveté particularly on foreign policy been effectuating such fearfulness within this nation state that we refuse to accept our reality? And because of our inability to address Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah with military force, we pick a silly fight with Israel? Or is it that Americans have come to realize that America would be — and indeed is — a better place because the enlightened progressives have reshaped and remolded American society? That this new era of Americans has finally submitted to ‘the way of Obama’ and the progressives’ political ideal?

The liberal progressives of today have persistently proffered an America where a communalist definitive of social justice is the acceptance. The progressives believe public funded entitlements are an obligatory normative. They also enthusiastically endorse a tax policy that in practice, for those paying into it, is discriminative and egregious. A tax policy that in its finality, if successful, penalizes the risk takers for the privilege of taking the risk; and if the risk taker loses its cash, tough… Unless the entity in question is a “too big to fail” or government enterprise such as Fannie or Freddie. Progressives espouse the redistribution of wealth, coupled with a perverse interpretive of newly founded individual rights, such as healthcare, as an ipso facto.

The leadership of the liberal progressives has tried to eliminate existentialism as the philosophical raison d’être of American distinction. They want Americans to submit to a socialistically inclined republic wherein the wise does all the thinking for the less than wisest. In their sense of perfect, the common man’s fate is rendered to the providence of government; a government that offers life’s essentials to all, regardless of status or intelligence quotient. In other words, working is no longer required.

A progressive’s utopia is a land whose population is equal in all material measurement. A land of uncanny understanding, civil tolerance, functional equality; a land where such is within one’s grasp if only one would submit to the promise and providence of government sagacious. The American people (or at least a significant number of Americans) actually believe it is proper, even preferred, to take money fairly earned by one — utilizing the government as the intermediary — and give that money to another. The other is not required to be an American citizen. The other can be a country, a worthy or not so worthy cause. This give-away of taxpayers’ dollars can also take the form of arms, food, drugs, the International Monetary Funds, the United Nations, or even a variant of services such as abortions — all supported by US currency.

As expected, for the life of me, I do not understand the thinking of these liberal progressives; it is beyond my cognitive to submit to their promise of something or another — well, it is either a something or it is another. I do not understand the Obama-Holder-Pelosi-Reid message, other than it is utter nonsense.

As I have conservative, I have liberal-progressive associates; some of my conservative acquaintances think of me as too conservative and certainly all of my liberal-progressive comrades think of me as outlandishly right wing… I do not believe I could ever generate enough consensus to fill anything larger than a phone booth; nevertheless, I prod along. I do so by putting one foot in front of the other, presumably just as those who think quite differently; admittedly however, I am sometimes a bit more frustrated than at other times over the present Obama governing process. But then I still have November to reconcile my current angst with the new leaning conservative congress.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The United States Government of Obama requires every American to prove that they have purchased health insurance; but to ask an immigrant, in compliance with federal law, for documented proof of legality is racist. This hypocrisy, this emblematic descriptive of contrariness, is beyond understanding.

The President of the United States is suggesting, implying, describing, and calling the newly passed Arizona ‘immigration law’ a disuniting of American’s commonality. I do not believe that speaking out against the Arizona Law is Obama’s real intent; in fact, I believe he is calling out his constituency to engage and save him and his political party from the forthcoming electoral debacle. This consummate politician is campaigning at all times.

Liberal progressives and their media bedfellows charge that the Arizona law results in blatant racial profiling and as such equates into an unavoidable and despicable sum of draconian discrimination against people of Spanish surnames. In keeping with that thought, the progressives also believe that implementation of the law requires the policing of all people of Mexican decent and that such marshalling of forces run counter to the base instincts of humanism and the American way of life.

Now, noting that all of these emotionally charged declaratives have no basis of truism; that there is heretofore no evidence to support their accusations… but such does not abate the Liberal Progressives from propagating their lies.

In the interest of creating the façade of rightfulness, pundits of the left state quite affirmatively that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional; of course, no such degree has been adjudicated. Often I forget that these Democrats are harbingers, soothsayers — as well as politicians.

To Obama and his minions the labeling of racist is an obligatory charge toward any person or entity that refuses to drink the Obama additive. However, I do recall these guys and gals being flexible, creative, and genuinely disingenuous. Therefore, when the charge by the lefties is a catchall descriptive void of specifics, (obviously because there is no evidence) then the accusers go to Plan B, declaring that the people of Arizona lack humanistic values.

Of course there is always the shortcut facilitated by the socialist, Marxist, Liberal progressive sagacity of deductive sensibility: Wherein they, (those that know all things material and relevant) the ‘Followers of Obama’, simply state that the Arizona Law is counter to the American way of life. Satisfied with that explanation, the followers move on to Tea Partiers.

Each one of the elected and appointed pledged to uphold the federal constitution and the laws of this land. When varied jurisdictions, cities, states, feds, and the employees therein pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to disregard, the nation is at risk of legalist mayhem and civil chaos. The result is a discombobulating of intrinsic American principles. Now marry such with an unsustainable federal debt, a ridiculously ambiguous canard representing itself as the federal tax code, a bloated federal, state, and city bureaucracy, a mounting shortfall of pension funds, two wars, half of the working citizens paying no federal individual income tax, global competition for trade and power, and a socialist in the White House, this nation of ours is in dire need for an electoral revolution.

Oh, and one more thing, the immigration problem in the United States is being caused by Mexicans. These people for the most part speak Spanish, have black hair, brown skin, and will do anything to leave Mexico. They are also hard working, decent, and honest; nevertheless, they are here illegally and need to comply with US Law. Complicit with the non compliant Mexican immigrant is our gutless Congressperson who does not have the intestinal fortitude to respond to a national emergency.

PS: The terrorist who are hell bent on killing us Americans are Islamic by religion and Muslim by culture; they need to be preemptively eliminated as a material threat to our citizens.


Authored by William Robert Barber

I am sick and tired of being managed by the elected, their appointed and selected, as if I was a blithering idiot. Believability is an essential component of governing. The subordination of citizen to the law of the land can only be achieved if there is an unwritten morally founded understanding between those that govern and the governed. This Obama administration has lost and is losing the pieces and parts, the moral fabric, the very stitching that bonds citizen to government. There has been way too much bullshit spread around the byways of congress, the White House, and the offices of this administration’s leadership.

Our elected have an insatiable appetite for presenting spews of hypocrisies (to the American people); these hypocrisies are multi-faceted in content as well as process. The elected are overt when presenting their pretensions; without even the courtesy of clever deception they overtly contradict their once closely held convictions. Indeed they are steadfast in their duplicitous, blatantly obvious, two-facedness.

The elected, once empowered, prance, dance, and rhetorically wiggle their ideological nonsense with an arrogance that can only be described as oligarchic in comportment. The behavioral actions of the Democratic Party, enthusiastically demonstrated by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, consider the federal government as the omnipotent authority; as such, this authority has the right of omnipresence in the lives of every American citizen. Accordingly, the power of the federal government has no specific constitutional limits, less to serve the interest of the subjectively interpreted common good.

Contradictions in fact are exactly that… hell, we have them video taped. Documented videos of Democratic politicians taking positions when they were out of power, righteously pronouncing positions on policy, process, and substance that they now directly contradict. Although, it is now the Democrats captured in these outrageous contradictions; the Republicans were as culpable. Power is the seducer of sensibility, faith, hope, and charity.

A government — not just this American government — is by compulsion omnivorous; government left to its intrinsic proclivity will eat its young. Since the time of Ur, power enhanced and, embedded within, the few have suppressed, eradicated, and abused individual liberty and freedom. Do we really need to relearn the same lesson over and over again?

The Obama movement must be stopped; by the grace of good sense, we Americans must not be fooled by the promises of the utopian socialist dreams of heaven on earth. This administration is managed by a cadre of ideologically driven socialists… Let’s pay attention and vote them out of sight and hearing!


Authored by William Robert Barber

I do believe that we of variant political prospective lose sight of the material concerns of and for Obama Care. Although cost is critical, it is not the financial cost to the nation, but the cost of liberty and freedom that creates the matter of material concern. There are others, such as Obama’s advocacy for ‘card-check’ laws which favor labor union expansion, the so-called “Green Energy Policy” coupled with the regulatory oversight of greenhouse gases and their investment expenditures. And then there is dealing with the swords-swirling in-hand Obama cavalry charge response toward any parapet of non-acceptance or contrary opinion. Clearly, bullying is the political tactic of the current administration; just as certain is Obama’s (media endorsed) unilateral disregard for the consequences of such bullying.

Of course there would be no bullying if the bully didn’t represent the majority on the playground of congress. Remembering, pushing and shoving begets pushing and shoving. Some fine day the majority will be the minority and like-same will be the declared causation of the tactics employed. One could point out that this strategy of common tactics is detrimental to the cohesiveness of working in the interest of the nation. But then, why do we cling to such objectives (such as cohesiveness) that are more mythic than objective?

Factually, once again in American history, the stakes are too high to compromise. In today’s political climate, one either is — or not; political prospective has come down to exactly that. Either one believes that utilizing government to spread the wealth is a moral virtue; or one believes that by authorizing (the enforcement of law) more government prerogatives as described is nothing less than simple federal empowerment that will result in the continuous abatement of individual liberty and freedom.

The liberal progressives could care less what the healthcare legislation costs and the conservatives consider any increase of taxpayer funds/monies into government an enrichment of federal governing power to the detriment of state sovereignty and a citizen’s lawful prerogatives. Conservatives believe that the ideological beliefs of liberal progressives negatively implicate every aspect of America’s being. In addition, conservatives believe that all political, social, economic, even cultural actions imposed by liberal progressives are designed to establish a socialistic society. Another material concern for conservatives is that the liberal progressives will impose a society wherein the federal government, by the empowerment granted by creeping institutionally delivered federal authority, in the eventual will effectually disable all individual thinking from cradle to grave in favor of what is in the interest of the collective. Such is to be determined by a governmental committee that establishes the order of common good.

For over a hundred years the Elephant and the Donkey have foot-worked their way around the ring; jabbing and thrusting at each other while seeking the opportunity to deliver a knock-out punch. Each dish-out expletives and fronts a politician to perjure and deceive; political parties exist to retain or attain governmental power and therefore, within their sphere, the factual or truthful are mere subordinates. Governmental apparatuses, bureaucracies, committees, boards, and the actions of leaders have been cheerfully purchased from the less than watchful citizenry by the metaphoric exchange of pretense, deception, and purposeful ambiguity.

Political corruption has not just survived but thrived. As a purposeful inducement to a continuance of voter apathy, a little less than 50% of Americans pay any federal taxes whatsoever as a consequence of having no skin in the game (purposefully enacted by politicians to buy votes); a malaise of disinterest has permeated every election, be it city, state, or national. In practical terms citizens’ oversight of governing wherefores is subject to the utility of very expensive lawyers, courts, and a judge’s interpretation of what is.

Well, what is now a law can be changed; we do have recourse but we must act. We conservatives must close ranks and elect conservatives to every elective vacancy; from city to federal, we need to capture, subdue, and cast out all officeholders of socialistic beliefs. There can be no quarter or compromise, Obama has made his intention very obvious: he is a socialist. In response, in the interest of protecting the ideals of our Constitution, we must gain super-majority control of congress.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The progressives have the wind at their back, a willing crew, and control of the helm wheel; the Obama ship of state, as Herman Melville once noted, “cleaves the brine with pinions afloat.” By means extraordinary the progressives have fitted the objections of the majority against healthcare into the bottle of disregard and tossed that bottle into the ocean.

As never before, the progressives of socialistic intentions have turned this right-central nation abruptly to the political left; the intelligentsias have won the day. Hosannas! Obama and his liberal progressives have achieved a great victory.

The Democrats have aligned their votes; the healthcare legislation is a reality. This political party, the party of FDR, is as in pre-WWII the catalyst, the implementer of radical economic and thus socio-cultural change. America is being pushed, unwillingly, into a European style of socialism; we the people can look forward to increased taxes, more governmental interdiction in our private life, and the hiring of many more federal employees.

Proportionately as never before the conservative movement is on a tear; as if on steroids, the opposition to Obama and his flock of progressives is focused and pointed. The objective is to retain and enrich this rally of anti-Obama policies into the November elections. The goal is to gain majority control of both houses of congress and position the electorate to vote down the healthcare ramification while capturing the presidency in 2012.

The conservative movement with its present anti-Obama government enthusiasm must not simply rescind what can be rescinded within the healthcare legislation but reinstate the original meaningfulness of the Constitution. The movement must limit and impose restrictions on federal power particularly where that power encroaches on state’s rights. Conservative must attain a super majority of public opinion and sweep liberal progressive representatives, their ideology, and their effect. We must stymie, block, and disable any ability of the Obama government to enact their socialistic, liberal, progressive ideals on this nation state.

Obama promised change and he is delivering the very change he declared; he and his followers must be stopped. Let’s defend the Constitutional concept of check and balance, state’s rights, and individual liberty by voting these progressives not simply out of office but out of contemplation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Dependence is a mutually accepted, very human obligatory; such starting with family, continuing with friends, teams, and so on. However, a citizen’s dependence on government has a meaningfulness beyond the simple acceptance of services. Indeed, dependence on government will cost one a portion — if not all — of one’s individual freedom, as well as initiate a society of victims and whiners. Inherent to the dependence on government services are the abatement, if not outright, rescission of self-reliance, self-determination, and the American spirit of existentialism.

Firstly, the premise that the government and its instruments (the elected, non-elected, appointed, regulators) are adhering to their obligations of service in a satisfactory measure and manner, is a consideration of constant concern. I would submit that considering the almost Byzantine structure and massive bureaucratically enriched infrastructure of the federal, state, county, and city governments, regardless of their honest intent or not, the likeliness of 75% effectiveness coupled with any reasonable level of consistent efficiency, is nil. But more importantly, is the government’s  jurisdictional expansion and the varied diversity to their claim of providence.

Secondly, these governments that we depend on are in fact enterprises. Indeed, in many instances they are monolithic monopolies with their own enforcement capabilities. They manage golf courses, bars, restaurants, tennis courts, pools, and parks. Governments are in the lottery racket, have owned and managed brothels, and card rooms. For a profit they confiscate (utilizing the civil & criminal RICO Act) and redistribute cash, cars, boats, and airplanes. Governments account for almost half the cost of gasoline, an increasing percentage of taxes and fees on cigarettes and liquor; via regulatory gimmickry they take a slice off of every material transaction in America.

Thirdly, this Obama government, as if to make President Bush a fiscal conservative instead of the spender that he and his Republican majority surely were, has pulled all the stops on pushing, pulling, and forcing a federal entitlement called “Obama care” on this nation . The final legislative bill remains a mystery; but under all possibilities, the legislation creates another complex of jointed and disjointed agencies and departments. Such a complex has its own issues of cost and management; withstanding, I believe the real cost is a citizen’s dependence on its government. A government that by means of its own can, and often does, change the rules of the game as it suits the perception of its needs.

Charged to manage the affairs of the nation, within the confines of its Constitution, each state in the nation voted for a very strong federal system of governess. Over the last two hundred years or so, this federal system has succeeded in its efforts by bequeath, mandate, or regulation to increase unanticipated power to itself. The result has effectually abated the power originally ordained to the states. For citizens, the governments have successfully designed a culture of compulsory, even expected, welfare-like dependence.

Congressperson have meandered into the purgatory of perpetual electoral inertia; wherein, fundraising, perks, the next election, party politics, and general nonsense has captured the mainstay of its time and effort. The result, for the most part, is the nothingness of strive for the sake of a win; all the while running up a federal deficit of elephantine proportion.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The media has enunciated the obvious… Liberals and conservatives disagree. The insightful mainstream media goes on to declare that the depth and scope of their disagreement is profound. For emphasis, as pointed out by pundits of varying political persuasions, the competing ideologies’ incongruity prompts child-like maliciousness such as name-calling. This kind of behavior is frequently coupled with scurrilous accusations. Imagine that — so say the network medias — a discovery of the apparent is now newsworthy.

Since the Obama election the attacks by liberals and conservatives have intensified and the media are almost enthusiastically enthralled by the thrusts, jabs, and overhand rights, executed by both sides. Indeed, the behavior of some within the ranks of the elected has carved a divide of irreconcilable disrespect and the new legislative norm seems to be opinionated rancor, polarization, and stubborn disregard.

Over the last 25 years of electoral, the electorate has lost all faith in the premise that governments applies its power evenly; instead, a significant number of citizens think of their government as one of freewheeling incompetence and arrogance. Wherein politicians are tenured practitioners interested in fostering a curriculum of electability and politicking, solely for the purpose of retention. For the average American voter, the yesteryear presumption of moral integrity has been replaced with askance, frustration, and a complete displacement of the obedient fidelity.

There are multiple reasons for such a sea-change of opinion; here are a few: Governments are now enterprises, aggressively working to sell services and products to its constituency. Governing bodies are in the gambling business, inclusive of slot machines, lotto, and table games. With their team of well paid staff, they have devised the means and methods to extract fees, permits, taking licensing to new levels of distribution. It is now accepted practice to create measures to impose indirect taxation on all aspects of all transactions. Additionally, the federal government has distanced itself so far-and-away from the average Joe and Mary that it no longer acts in tempo with the community’s need. For capital’s politicians, Washington is a sublime place where those that know all things reside; these inhabitants have lost their regard of constituents’ interest, along with hearing and sight.

Withstanding the disengagement of Washington, for the political parties, compromise has run its course, no room for any give and take; the two factions are stubbornly steadfast in their beliefs. Ostensibly, respective of the reality of political gamesmanship, the liberals and conservatives are truly committed to their ideals and will not — even in the interest of the nation — abandon one more ideal in favor of a compromise.

When the liberal or conservative leadership is challenged by a material question, without hesitation, they reference their predetermined ideals or beliefs. Only after gaining access to these founding premises will they fashion a response. If the challenging question appeals to their emotion rather than to their logic, more than likely the effect will render a proportionate emotional reaction. If the material question is logic oriented, then the question either serves as a supporting tool to an inherent belief, or is discarded because it is unsupportive of a held belief.

In other words, beliefs and ideals do not die easily; indeed, to transpose an original thesis to an anti-thesis is an uphill expedition. Our ideals and beliefs are intrinsic to our persona. Thus, in order to change one’s intrinsic belief, words alone are not sufficient. Influences of empirical reality must be experienced over and over again to provoke a change in a founding ideal. Experiences that provoke charge are rare and exceptional. Therefore, one’s founding premises respective of valid evidence to the contrary is nearly intractable.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will never agree to conservative beliefs or ideals; indeed, their beliefs and ideals are the direct antithesis. For the media to expect anything other than such behavior in this volcanic emotionally charged political scenario is rather naive.

It has, for voters, come down to the simplest of questions. Where, within the scope of political variance, is your personal and national best interest served? If one believes the government is the answer/solution than the Democratic Party is your choice. If one believes in the conservative premise of limited governess, than one’s best bet is the Republican Party. After all, when the ambiguity of politics and governing is cleared away, it really comes down the simplest of terms.

Oh, vote conservative…