CHANGE IS FORTHCOMING

Authored by William Robert Barber

Team Trump is on the march. The political-socio-cultural nuances of society, as well as the enterprising wherewithal of business in America is about to take an abrupt turn to the right. The regulatory machinations of the governing progressive über-left are being lined up for thoughtful revision or outright repeal. China and Russia are on notice: The Obama doctrine of mistaking cooperative appeasement as leadership has ended.

While Obama’s foreign policy twists and turns to the beat of “mother may I,” China and Russia have successfully been playing a very weak hand; they have appreciated the artfulness of bluffing into their strategic policies.

China is the world’s largest importer of oil. In other words, if the importation of oil was embargoed via a Saudi-USA agreement, China would be depending on Russia, Venezuela, Libya, and other odd sources to feed their navy. 15% (and rising) of Chinese exports are sold to the United States. Factually, the US purchasers generate far more profit on Chinese goods than the Chinese enjoy when selling their goods to America. The Chinese accept US$ as payment and invest such monies in US infrastructure, real estate, debt instruments, and equity. China is wholly dependent on a strong and vibrant USA. If China ever posed a military threat to the United States, we would enforce an oil embargo, initiate a naval blockade, and seize all of their US assets. 

Economically, Russia is death warmed over: As goes the price of oil so goes the cash influx needed to satisfy domestic demand. Imposed trade sanctions create trade limitations. The combination of import/export restrictions on consumer goods and vital financial services, expenditures of Russian treasury and blood onto Syria and Ukraine are not only costly; but such efforts, saving the Assad regime and enabling conflict along the Ukrainian border is of zero benefit to the Russian people.

The country is a plutocracy. Interestingly, even the wealthiest members cannot trust the Number One plutocrat. Those with wealth and power within Russia are subject to a whimsical Putin. Acting on a whim; the Number One plutocrat could confiscate their wealth, destroy their families assets, and terminate their being. For Russians with business and governing responsibilities it is understood that fear is on the one hand the glue that binds fealty and on the other the knowing that such binding of fealty is wholly tentative. The question is: Sustainability, how long before a competing plutocrat or some grievous financial necessity forces a change of control? 

Over the last eight years, Putin’s strength was in direct contrast to Obama’s weakness… that is obvious fact. A fact that on the 20th of January will abruptly and blatantly contrast the former president from the newly empowered.  

“Draining the swamp” requires definitive means. If one believes (as I do) that the degree of corruption is proportional to the size of government. That corruption is a constant and steadfast component of governing. That it is impossible, under common terms and conditions, to stop the growth of government. And that the sole alternative to impeding government growth (because growth requires money, and all government income is derived from taxes, fees, and borrowed funds), it is self–evident that to stymie the growth of government one must decrease the quantifiable of tax revenue by abating the percentage of taxable revenue.

Trump’s ability to legislate his policy through the morass of congress is as true a test of governing agility as G. Washington’s term as president. The challenges are certainly as perplexing as Gordian’s Knot: according to legend, Alexander circumvented the anticipated by pulling out his sword and cutting the knot in half. Well, a few thousand years later, let’s see how Trump responds to the multiple of knots coming his way.

THE FORTHCOMING OF TRUMP

Authored by William Robert Barber

The people of common stock and ordinary means were awakened by a billionaire’s asymmetric yet persistently applied promise of advocating an uncompromising transformation of the public’s business. This proposed transformation would center its efforts on Washington corruption and incompetence, while in unison rescind President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders and review for the purpose of rescission the multitude of federal agency regulations that impair the coherent operating of business. The foreign policy of a Trump administration strengthens the will of NATO, impresses upon S. Korea and Japan the necessity of “paying their fair share” for the defense of their countries as well as the region. ISIS, no longer, will face an American force with both hands tied from behind, and Iran will either submit or be intensely sanctioned. This is the forthcoming of a Trump administration.

The liberal progressives are putting their game face on and pledge resistance; however, as enunciated by President Obama, “elections have consequences.” For the licensed and intellectually endowed liberal elite who objectively survey what is left of their beleaguered amount of Blue States. Verve the tacit acknowledgment that the Republicans victory has decimated the heretofore arrogant pretentious acceptance that liberal progressivism would govern the future of America.

The peripatetic policy of leading from way the hell back and the effectual contrivance therein is over. America is no longer dictated by the Obama administration’s digressive, arcane, and prodigiously fictive means to justify progressive expressions of implied sensibility.  

Blood-flecked Realpolitik is the wherewithal to stymie Russia’s policy of aggressive insistence. The sanguinary bombing of the Syrian confederate(s) is a war crime; the perpetrator of such is Putin. His partner of equal significance is Iran. Obama’s blind-eye approach to the blood soaked sand of the Middle East has been a blessing amongst our enemies.

President Obama’s devotion to progressive principles has stalled our economy in a fog of data enriched liberal-laced purposeful contrivance. The president has conjured an enduring baselessness as the ethos of his governing; such preference for the nonsensical marches shoulder-to-shoulder with his Machiavellian tenancy to blatantly lie to the American people.

I am so pleased with Clinton’s loss and the palpable rejection of Obama’s legacy…

THE ELECTION BEFORE US

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the year 1781, adjoining Yorktown, Virginia British General Charles Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington while tradition recalls the British band playing an English ballad, “The World Turned Upside Down”. This American military victory was unbelievable.

The election of 2016 is a shining reflection of wanderings amiss, another unbelievable: Two wholly unqualified candidates are the electorates’ choice. In this election, innuendos, rumors, and factoids have suppressed the normalities of voter concerns, policies, and issues. The only pertinent question is: which one of the two nominees is the worst?

Long ago, American individualism was forsaken for the opaque assurance of personal security. The prevalent idea that government knows best has prompted a domestic policy wherein amoral secularism has inspired a predisposition to further — no matter the empirical evidence to the contrary — the outright dismissal of competitive ideals. Liberal progressivism has engulfed and is chocking the vitality out of the credo of American exceptionalism.  Congress and the Constitution: Be damned! Progressive leadership favors depositing American foreign policy decisions to the feckless United Nations; multilateralism and the internationalism of European socialism is their ultimate goal.

In today’s complex of technological options the means and power to influence thought is mighty. The media, all types and varieties, have extraordinary power over voter behavior. In this election cycle a lie, a purposeful misdirection, a circumvention of the truth in the interest of conflation or befuddlement has been lethally weaponized. 

An overwhelming amount of television and news print media has taken as a mission of consequence the political defeat of Donald Trump. They equate Trump as a bête noire, a person that is irredeemably a hundred times as dangerous as Nixon.

As a standalone Trump is contestably far from the average presidential hopeful. However, compare the two: Trump’s faux claims, his past disgusting unsolicited sensual advances toward women, his inability to disguise his narcissism, and his instinctual self-destructive behavior versus Hillary Clinton’s unabashed persistence of lying directly to the American people, her decisions regarding Russian engagement, the Iranian deal, her disastrous approach to Libya coupled with her unforgivably incorrigible acts and non-acts regarding Benghazi. Trump is no prize — but his actions never killed people! Hillary, in concert with President Obama, is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Hillary is an ideologically dedicated progressive who will undermine this nation’s constitution. Donald is not Hillary… and the world has turned upside down; given the choice before me I will vote for Donald.

NO MATTER WHAT: THE ONLY CHOICE IS TRUMP

Authored by William Robert Barber

The peripheral, the outer edges of principal are the media’s emphasis of and for this election’s Republican protagonist. Although awash in hypocrisy and outright duplicity, The New York Times enunciates Trump’s wholly legal 1995 tax return as some kind of moral insight. Pronouncing Trump sinful for adhering to (while benefiting from!) the tax laws of the land, interestingly, the management of the (NYT) did not in the same article report that the newspaper acted in exactness on its own tax returns and accordingly benefited.

In the present, the radio and televised media is shocked, even traumatized and of course offended, by an eleven-year old crude locker-room type recording of Trump and Billy Bush’s stupid apathetically delivered fabrication of their imaginative thoughts on the general behavioral instincts of women.

 I am in my 73rd  year of existence; I can assure my readership that, no matter their station in life, just about all men have said stupid, insensitive untruths about their counter-gender. Seemingly, to be male is to be born with a debilitating software defect. Compared to females, males are slow learners and take forever to mature. I present this debility of my gender not as an excuse for the ridiculous idiocy of Trump and Billy Bush’s recorded conversation but to note, in the scheme of electoral importance, its irrelevancy. 

There is no justification for this sort of stupid. Nonetheless, even when armed with the cognitive knowledge to know better and when the truth of the matter is palpable, we all have been practitioners of stupid comments and behavior.

However, as a voter, one’s analysis of Hillary Clinton’s ideological persuasion, her mantra of liberal progressive declarations and her determinative Machiavellian approach to politics defines the ethos of her personal reflective representation. Measure Clinton’s transgressions against the misbehaviors and indiscretions of Trump’s:

Benghazi: because of a pending election she collaborated with the Obama administration’s deceit and patently lied to the American people while Trump was wasting time and energy, striving to prove that President Obama was not born in the USA. As Secretary of State she perpetuated a policy of deceit and ignored the rescue of Americans fighting off a terrorist attack she defined as the result of a nasty video. Trump on the other hand was busy with the benign silliness of striving to disprove a Honolulu, HI issued birth certificate.

The Iranian deal as negotiated, affirmed, and touted by Clinton is an exemplar of definitive absurdity. An incongruity of good sense, rated above the stupidity (upon our withdrawal from Iraq) of not leaving in place a viable contingent of fighting forces supposedly because of the lack of a “status of forces agreement,” noting we presently have thousands of military in Iraq and these troops are operating without a “status of forces” agreement. In 2010 Biden wrongheadedly assured the American public that the withdrawal from Iraq “is one of the greatest achievements” of the Clinton-Obama administration, but another instance of innocence blatantly applied. One can objectively conclude that the Iranian agreement, as with the withdrawal from Iraq, is the result of an administration adrift in naiveté. The sum of facts founded on deductive deduction persuades one to believe that Clinton’s progressive Democrats lack a commonsensical understanding of world affairs. While Trump tweets nonsensical jabs of blank importance that fundamentally injure only his own persona, Clinton and President Obama’s policy decisions have actually caused death and destruction. They have, with the aid and assist of a dedicated cadre of liberal progressives, advanced otherwise unnecessary Diaspora of refugees and general mayhem throughout Europe. Conclusively, Trump is the only possible choice; Hillary Clinton is an anathema to a conservative America.

AMERICA IS ON THE VERGE OF IMPAIRMENT

Authored by William Robert Barber

Fairness and evenhandedness are not a fact, factor, or datum of life and living; in truth, fairness and evenhandedness are — at best — ideals, besieged by a variant of threats to any continuum of civility. Imbedded in the ideologically driven propagation of media driven half-truths and misinformation are the besiegers. He, she, those, and they, the usefully innocuous, those wide-eyed innocent do-gooders unknowingly in league with the overtly disruptive, all unevenly contribute to abate the meaningfulness of the factoids — fairness and evenhandedness.  

Disunity is the catalyst of conflict. Surely, the wide-assorted divergence of opinions held by the many that rest their vote on identity politics is confounding the rational required by a democratic republic. The dissent amongst differing demographics each espousing a belief founded on perception rather than empirical evidence, logical deduction, or rational reasoning has validated the staying power of our primal tribal instincts.

Since the early 1900’s progressives have opted for a wonk elite to guide the republic instead of trusting the people to manage their democracy. For progressives, any counter-force to their ideas are radical, heretical, and/or branded injudicious. In today’s “carte du jour” of scurrilous accusations, progressives have reset their vocabulary to labeling their opponents racists, sexists, and mad.

Setting aside the “good intentions” of progressives, if their progressivism turned into reality the result would be the same as other “-isms.” Such as social-ism, technocratic-ism, fasc-ism, autocratic-ism, bureaucrat-ism… all -isms end with the adage “I know what is best -ism,” with the resulting finality, the cultural end of Americanism coinciding with the impairment of capitalism.  

The essential political platform of our democratic republic is capitalism. The economic underpinning of capitalism underwrites the expressed and implied values of America. Withstanding all imperfections, flaws, and accompanying defects of the system, capitalism is the essential compatriot of our democratic republic. The relationship is symbiotic.

Importantly, capitalism is not compatible with liberal progressivism’s insistence on penalizing profitability. Demonizing the more successful enforces the constant eroding of individualism in favor of a secular egalitarianism; this ideal of progressivism demeans the ethos of self-reliance. However, currently opinion surveys and pundits tell me that Hillary will be the next president. After all, Americans voted President Obama in twice, so I have little confidence in the Republicans’ ability to save the nation.  

HOPE IS AN ILLUSION

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama government is much more comfortable with the concept of “Hope” than the “take no prisoners” truth that defines this apathetic, “could-give-a damn” Darwinian survival of the fittest world. Even when evidencing what one deems as critically threatening to American interest, the president insists on “Hope” as the viable alternative to a persistently menacing problem.

The philosophic basis of today’s liberalism is one of hopefulness. As a liberal thinker President Obama presumes that man is rooted in good; therefore, all discerned exceptions to “good behavior” are the fault of some societal deficiency or Republican brainwashing.

The crux of the progressives’ political message is to point out the unfairness of the economic system. Directly and obliquely, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders contend that unfairness derived from and perpetuated by the one percent is the significant cause of economic discontent. They imply and express that the elimination of unfairness is their raison d’être for seeking elective public service. Noting that after almost two terms of a democratic presidency the central issue of concern for Clinton and Sanders persists. Irrespective, the battle cry for elective office by democratic contenders remains a slight variation of “Change We Believe In.”

Firstly, I assume, Clinton and Sanders, in every instance, will define fair. Secondly, they will ultimately define fair in keeping with their ideology and the terms, conditions, and timing requirements of their political resources. However, differing only on the amount of tax dollars needed, these two presidential candidates have summarily agreed on the solution. They have promised to cure what ails with the dispensing of other peoples’ cash. “Spend more money” is the steadfast progressive solution — a solution the president whole-heartily indorses.

Premised on a naïve, fragmented, even incoherent displacement of deductive logic rest the founding principles of President Obama’s foreign policy. He thought that he could declare peace… in fact, he did declare peace and withdrew armed forces from Iraq while underfunding the entire U. S. Armed Forces. His administration now dances around the use of the word ‘combat.’ The man of hesitancy is bewildered, confused, and befuddled, all the while holding his breath until next January.

Domestically, his factious rhetoric has given cause to the disruptive actions of “Black Lives Matter.” He is the reason Secretary Clinton’s indictment for her email malpractice remains a republican dream.

Of course, no worries: we Americans have “Hope.” We will continue to believe that a good defense is superior to an aggressive, relentless offense. Surely, our enemies will realize Allah’s call to arms is a ruse enacted by evil beings. Thematically Obama’s belief is, if we treat Islamic fanatics with respect, they will embrace, in time, a secular’s sense of human values. Convincingly, there must be moderate Muslims who understand that those who cut off heads, enslave women, and burn people alive in the name of Allah are bad people.

Certainly, the immediate preceding is a descriptive of “Hope.” I prefer to believe in faith rather than hope: I have faith that our armed forces will destroy ISIS because our mission statement is explicit. Our planning is in place and our resolution assured because our nation state accepts nothing less.

Hundreds of years ago a Roman general said, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” — “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Nothing has changed; the world is not any safer and Humankind is just as behaviorally dysfunctional as 1st century Rome. “Hope” is a wish-it-was-so, but it is not reality. Reality took down the Twin Towers. To think otherwise will lead to the end of liberty and the beginning of subjugation.

PRECEDENCE DOMINATES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Authored by William Robert Barber

Comforted by the president’s natural inclination to pretense hesitation as intellectual contemplation, precedence has — once again — routed ingenuity. Because President Obama will NOT define the enemy or admit policy mistakes, the initiative of redefining strategy in the interest of inventive tactics are set aside as counter-precedent, thus non-compliant. Therefore the president discards ingenuity and inventive for the ineffective policies of precedence. All of these presidential theatrics symbolizes a befuddled, overwhelmed, and rudderless presidency. As an example of policy priority, whiles Kerry and Obama discuss climate change, chaos dominates and ISIS plots and plans.

There is an existential Jihadist menace to the hearth of humanity — therefore a real viable threat to the homeland. Irrespective, the subjects of security and preparedness (for the Obama administration) are collateral instead of central. After several attempts by Jihadist to kill Americans, in San Bernardino, ISIS combatants attacked innocents attending a company Christmas party. Applicably, for many Americans the fear of more such attacks has triumphed reason. To calm the fearful the president expounds on the merits of gun control. In response, the fearful purchase thousands of guns…

The president and secretary of state preside in a fairyland of unicorns, rainbows, and wish-it-were-so delusion. These two Ivy League intellectuals cannot envision the “real world” other than as the predisposed liberal progressives they are.

Can the United States, can the free world contain ISIS long enough? Alternatively, will ISIS attain a chemical or nuclear weapon before the free world forcibly ends the Syrian War and eradicate the ISIS threat? Will more Americans be gunned down in their own country… when is enough, enough?

America is at risk from within and without, by enemies such as ISIS and liberal progressives with the best of intentions.

Nonetheless, issues of domestic concern are far worse than a Jihadist threat to the homeland. Abated and delegitimized by a republic adrift, liberty and personal freedoms accordingly suffer. The constitution as construed is no longer the basis of law. We truly have become a land of men instead of law.

In our world, information is voluminous and consistently inaccurate. Ideology has captured the free press and the press is subjected to ideological preferences. For our politicians assisted by a compliant media and an increasingly promiscuous culture, lying is accepted as a means to an end. Distortion and misdirection are interpreted as simply utilities of convenience.

Well, the electoral game of musical chairs is entertainingly afoot and of course there is always the positive perspective; so let us all be hopeful: after all, it is a joyous time of the year…

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RESPONSE

Authored by William Robert Barber

Fear is an innate human stimuli, a chemically induced reaction to even the perception of endangerment. There are three distinct responses to fear: The immediate deployment of ill-conceived and ineffective counteracts. The freezing of mind and body, a “deer in the headlights” syndrome often coupled with a nervous bafflement that prompts an emission of oral disarray and/or a flickering of disjointed discombobulation ultimately resulting in a temporary loss of command and sensibility.

Our president’s most recent news conference and subsequent addresses displayed his personal reactive state of fear: The realization that his strategic policies employed against the ISIS threat are wrongheaded is the president’s greatest fear. This fear of being dead wrong has overwhelmed his progressive ideology. His response to his wrongheadedness was to double down on the very same strategic policies. He spoke with all the bravo he could muster but instead of his speech instilling confidence, he came across as combative, dismissive, and weak.

The threat of wanton killings prompts (for all at risk… those of us without armed bodyguards) the need for certitude. Nevertheless, instead of strategic and tactical certitude from leadership, we citizens receive (from politicians and their staff) complexities of linguistically designed misdirection, ambiguities of declared purpose, and professorial pomposity delivered by President Obama in the form of a (I know best) sagaciously spoken spanking.

For us of common and generally uninformed stature the lack of a definitive military, diplomatic, political plan to eliminate the ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, threat creates an anxiety that pugnaciously infiltrates rational thought. When confronted with the probability that these fanatics will hit soft targets within the United States the president’s professorial pomposity lacks a moat, high-thick walls, and an aggressive martial offence. The result is the potential for a continuance of irrational thought and if this nation suffers a Parisian-similar attack, irrational thought will incite irrational behavior. 

These Islamic terrorists have demonstrated the thin veneer between the sanely civilized and the insanely primitive. Aside from the, as described by Lenin and Stalin, “useful idiots”, the devout root of these followers of Mohammad is a distinctive belief strengthened by a known quantity of theocratic truism. This is literal belief founded on the words of the Prophet as stated in the Quran; guided by the Hadith these Muslim terrorists faithfully believe their Jihad is morally sound. They will not be persuaded otherwise and foolish to try; these disciples of “the word” are way beyond the power of rational persuasion.

This is total war. Before these crazies harness nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponry, as Rome conquered Carthage in the Third Punic War, America must annihilate the means to which these Muslim fanatics can threaten, terrorize, or intimidate Western culture. Yes, that means killing them. 

President Obama is in office until 2017. Other than intensifying his present strategy he will not act. However, we do have the infrastructure of Congress and the will of the American people to pressure the president to offer a definitive solution to the ISIS crises.

Please, not Hilary, the socialist, or another liberal progressive… elect a Republican conservative, who would start to solve the biggest problem this nation faces: The problem of leadership, domestic and international…

DIVERSITY: THE CONCEPT

Authored by William Robert Barber

The principle policy of diversity as practiced throughout the institutions of our nation is harmonious with today’s mores of political correctness. Diversity as defined in factual implementation is (solely speaking for myself) the new virtue; its actions parallel the ideals of collectivism — Lenin would surely approve and socialists rejoice. Its meaningfulness in utilitarian terms has had a profound effect upon every aspect of American society. Its legislative or judicial enactment conjures and evokes socio-political concepts and theories such as social justice, societal inequality, equalitarianism, and scientism; these premises are considered (by diversities advocates) synonymous to progressive governance.

The elected leader of diversity is President Obama. The guiding philosophy is progressivism. The means to achieve diversity as instigated by the president (and progressives’ tagalong socio-economic-political connotations) is boundless in temerity. The president considers Machiavellian extralegal tactics as actionable both in scope and methods. For the common and ordinary (person) the president consistently promises more than he can deliver. He creates a non-existent problem so to publicly boast his profound solution; one such problem was “the war on women”… his solution: Vote Democrat. He rhetorically theorizes his willingness to either incur more debt or extort cash from those that have so to (supposedly) give to those that have less. He repeatedly declares, “I have a pen and a phone”, effectually dictating that by executive order he can and will circumvent congress.

The progressives believe that as with Hammurabi’s Code the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated non-applicable document requiring an extensive rewrite. Additionally, a highly thought-of progressives’ ideal is that the legacy of individual freedom and liberty, the principles, spirit, and definition of traditional American values are, as with the philosophy of individualism and existentialism, a menace to their concept of a sophisticated equalitarian society.

The ideological divide between a conservative and a progressive is so divergent, compromise is impossible. This chocolate will NEVER mix with the vanilla; conciliation requires concessions and there will be no substantive give and take. There will only be confrontation, conflict, and frustrated bitterness… until one political philosophy wins dominance.

Interestingly, I believe that even if the progressives should win they will lose: Their ideas just don’t function fluidly in a free society.

DO IT TO ME ONE MORE TIME

Authored by William Robert Barber

Once again “the people” have witnessed numerous examples of government malfeasance. But the issue of actual concern extends way beyond simple governmental malfeasance:

Withstanding the acceptance that government is a channel of corruption and every government that has ever existed has obliged the curse of dishonesty and exploitation, what the most recent congressional hearings discerned were the overt outlandish lies and distortions forwarded not only by the perpetrators, but also their leaders and particularly the administration’s spokespersons. When the discovery process of congressional oversight is limited to and about political party allegiance instead of striving to attain the truth of the matter; it is only a hop, skip, and jump to the utter destruction of our democratic republic.

From outward (lobbyists, affiliates, those with personal connections — all egocentric influencers of governing policy and procedure) to inward (duplicitous politicians in league with agency leadership that follows political party fidelity above the interest of the nation) including all willing practitioners of statutorily compliant corruption have transformed this nation into a statist- authority-synthesis of its former self.

Regarding the NSA, FBI, CIA, IRS, FEC, EPA, hmm… better to include all government agencies… the issue is not whether these operating entities are statutorily bound to perform their duties; unequivocally they are so bound. The issue is: should the people trust these agencies to comply? Distinctly the answer is: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Government is not a self-monitoring software program; governments are populated and administered by people — and people are fallible.

Congressional oversight of governmental doings is a sober responsibility. But when the conservative majority in the House investigates the workings of the Obama administration the liberal-progressives thwart the conservatives’ efforts because of political concerns. Such conduct is an instance of pure corruption… and frankly, should not be tolerated. Nevertheless, it is not only tolerated but exemplified as the skillful application of one safeguarding political interest.  

Governments at every level squander monies, function imprudently, and suffer from Lord Acton’s premise of ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’. But the further away government is from the governed, the deeper the sins and the wider the corruption. Clearly, the federal government has grown way beyond its ability to effectively function; this factual (although widely accepted) respective of political affiliation is never addressed.

The federal government subsidizes too many entities, benefits too many of the undeserving, and is operating above the law. The federal government has disabled federalism and infected every state in the union with its discretionary distribution of tax revenue. If tax revenue abates, the federal reserve is ready to just print more money. The bigger the government, the more the corruptive influences permeate within and throughout the appendages of governing.

Elections do have consequences…