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…

Advertisements

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…

WISHFUL THINKING

Authored by William Robert Barber

Mindboggling, bewildering, amazingly dumb, and downright ignorant is the concept of peace at anytime; much less peace in our time. The very idea that peace (as a foreign policy goal) is an attainable probability is an absolute absurdity. Realpolitik dismisses peace as outright naiveté — a dangerous strategy and a silly forethought. Yet, although, and still the intelligentsia unapologetically touts peace as its ultimate goal, the raison d’être of a nation state’s primary obligatory, and most profusely, those who profess to know just about everything (wonks of the department of state for one) pronounce peace as the moral-ethical priority of an enlightened society.    

For those of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton legacy, the very ones that underwrite, regulate, and administrate the workings of the government dismiss the available volubility of documentation to the contrary and continue to profess peace as feasible. After all, they who behold MBAs and JDs have degreed that peace is the rational extension of humanness, of intellectual enlightenment; conclusively therefore, these of Noblesse Oblige lineage (the ones that run the show) have confidently surmised: Rational deduction reasons that peace is reasonable thus attainable.

I say that peace is mythical as well as a convenient illusion void of all empirical evidence as to its attainment; further, peace as a stated policy goal is nothing more than a rhetorical utility extensively used as a reason for violent conflict; an excellent example of such rhetorical utility is WWI: “The war to end all wars.” Since humanoids learned to fashioned and bound stone to stick, millions of humans have died directly or indirectly from the purposeful misdirection of establishing peace in the name of war.

The intrinsic behavioral dysfunction that prompts one to rob, deceive, murder, and lie on an individual basis is the same — although exaggerated dysfunction that prompt nations to, under the ensign of manifest destiny, xenophobia, theocratic intolerance, ideological incongruity, or a myriad of other such ‘causes to act violently’ predicaments that render the idea of peace as a foreign policy goal impossible.  

Amongst nation states the great persuader is not kindness, personal niceties, nor offers of understanding and friendship. The great persuader is power coupled with the will to act. Power if uncoupled from the will to act disadvantages the nation with power; such a disadvantage eventually disables the persuasion of power rendering the nation in common denomination with the not-as-powerful.

The choice is self-evident: America is either the most powerful nation on earth or not. If the choice is “not” then another nation will take its place; the weaker will either submit or conflict. Prudence and analytical reality compel America to be the most powerful nation on earth. Therefore a foreign policy that is as unrealistic as the ridiculous notion that peace is an attainable goal only misdirects costly efforts, wastes resources, and corrupts time spent. Further, when one accepts peace as an attainable goal one expends treasure, resources, and blood in the hope that the particular counter-party will be converted to civil sensibility, rational deduction, stop the violent behavior, and act reasonably. The key word is hope. Hope is not a tactical or strategic policy; hope is emotional wishfulness.

My assumption is that peace as a goal is so impeded in the American psyche that my thoughts will be dismissed and disregarded; nevertheless, I have expressed my thoughts on the subject and found accordingly satisfaction in doing so. Obviously, my concern is that as Secretary Kerry and President Obama seek compromise with America’s enemies and pseudo-allies in the interest of peace the result will be diminished U. S. power while eliminating this nation’s will to act from its quiver of steal-tipped arrows.

VOX POPULI

Authored by William Robert Barber

 

In the words of Alexis de Tocqueville:  “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” 

 

As never before in American history the warning of De Tocqueville has been realized. This election plainly presented a classic exemplar, the quantitative consequence, of President Obama’s class warfare propaganda.  The ethnic minorities, the have-less, the welfare-dependent, the callow, the obsessive contrarians, the idealistically inclined, and the devoted liberal-progressives…  in essence an assortment of divergent special interest groups coalesced to defeat the candidate with the only viable political-economic alternative to the current economic malaise.

 

The Federal Reserve can and will print all the cash it deems necessary, congress will tax, nevertheless printing monies and increased taxation will not generate a fiscally viable economy. There are some financial-commercial realities that cannot be swept away by promises. Taxes and fees (all taxes and fees) are generated from the profits of commerce. Even those creative municipalities that feed off of total revenue instead of net profits can only successfully collect their monies if the particular private enterprise is profitable. 

 

President Obama’s second term will include the enthusiastic continuance of unions financing Democratic politicians, States with Democratic governors will excessively levy, budgetary problems of federal entitlements rhetorically regurgitated but not resolved, ObamaCare implemented at a price of fiscally disastrous effects and complications, statutorily compliant corruption will proliferate, the concept of central planning and green energy rewarded, as the constitutionally enshrined meaningfulness of federalism retrogrades into a meaningless historical-remnant.   

 

On the international front Russia and China will enthusiastically extend their influence, allies will exhibit anxiety, Iran ecstatic, Israel apprehensive; and Canada is wondering if the pipeline will ever go through.   

 

The president and his disciples will immediately focus on the next election with the ambition of returning the House to Democratic control. They will continue overtly and in Argot to personally demonize the Republican Party and its members. Obama’s Deus ex Machina magic requires his coterie of devotees to control all branches of government. By the midterm election the president must establish the means to execute the progressives’ egalitarian entitlement state and their brand of authoritarian statism.

 

The plenipotentiary ambitions of the Statist contested against those persons of conservative principles and limited government will almost immediately evolve into an indignant balkiness of will. A spectacular reminiscent of a televised Mexican Lucha Libre wherein stories of hair-pulling, spitting, and eye-gouging dominate the news media.

But no matter who does what to whom, socialism, progressivism, authoritarian statism, or a status of egalitarian entitlement will not displace the present economic malaise with the antitheses. Governmental largeness will always fail to deliver fiscal success and abate freedom from the within and the without. Obama and his progressives will, at great cost to Americans, follow the path of the entire socialists and progressives of the past — they will fail to deliver.

THE TRUTH OF IT

Authored by William Robert Barber

The methodology of achieving dynamic governmental growth sponsored and applied by this country’s congresses and executive leadership, particularly after the Civil War and on to the early progressive era of 1900 could not have linked nor anticipated the fiscal calamity of 2008-2012 to its progressive political indoctrination and implementation. During this “golden age of progressive thought” there were no concerns amongst the populous that the federal government was exceeding its constitutional mandate, no one was worried that the feds would spend excessively more than the tax revenue provided, nor did anyone note the disproportional erosion of individual liberty and freedom as the power of the federal government exponentially grew upon acquiring the right to tax its citizenry.  

Indeed the discussions amongst the years 1910-1913 that led to the 16th amendment were considered (by the progressives & a large percentage of the population) the appropriate fiscal vehicle; the fair and equitable pecuniary means for which to extend the federal government’s income. This federal need for income was explained as “funds necessary to enact those certain (promised by the elected) programs, departments, and agencies that would benefit the average American”. No one anticipated that the right to tax individual Americans would convolute into the multitude of corrupted influences that would result in empowering the federal government into a jurisprudentially approved presence of omnipotent coercive dominance on every individual American not only in America but on every American throughout the world.  

In order for our federal government to arrive at its present berth of enigmatic bureaucratic complexities, wherein laws are nothing less than vague and confounding perplexities where a congress full of disingenuous representatives are so caught up in the interest of projecting their own rancorous ideological persuasion that the business of the nation is set aside as a collateral eventual. Therefore the business of governing is delegated to retained attorneys, unelected staff, and ideological acolytes who, aside from direct obedience to orders, imply their own selections and expressions of rightfulness into the rules and regulations of legislative enactments. It is therefore understood that inherent to the congressional process which includes the passing of legislation no one understands, is the handing off of endorsed laws of the land to an unelected public employee union protected officialdom of civil servants.  

The willingness of the elected, often with the blessings of their constituency, to accept a heavily leveraged debt on future tax revenue requires decades of not simply imprudent legislation or the simple disregard of the sagacious in favor of expedited contrivance. Nor is this nation’s fiscal disposition the fault of political connivance for some special interest, oh no, the corruption is much deeper and broader in scope than that simplistic an answer.  

Most disconcertingly the fault that forms the basis for this nation’s present fiscal disposition lies within the quality of its national leaders. It is the leadership — or should I enunciate the lack of leadership — that has eroded conventional American values. Leaders, instead of accepting the realities of truthful disclosure (to the people as well as to themselves) have fabricated a surrealistic response to national problems in hopes of retaining or attaining elected office and to facilitate those allied brethren who would benefit from such political tomfoolery.

A significant portion of the populous has purposefully (documented by willful actions) abandoned direct responsibility for their actions in favor of governmental sureties of sustaining guarantees. They have discarded traditional virtues for the convenience of the now. An increasing portion of the electorate has been convinced to morally forsaken outcomes, consequences, and the eventual finality of reality by applying the reassuring habitual of amoral stupefaction.    

No greater example of such non-leadership is the Obama-Bidden administration… the only responsibility they agree to accept is the responsibility of governing for the next four years. Do we conservatives, moderates, and even fair-minded liberals really want four more years of the Obama-Bidden brand of leadership? I think NOT.

The government can easily hide, rearrange, and disfigure data and statistics; the government can print money and tax every American for anything it wishes. The president can lie to the American people; he can coach the Secretary of State and the head of national intelligence to fault themselves for the distortions of facts in Libya… But this president cannot fool all the people all of the time. The evidence of all my contentions and assertions will be vindicated or not upon election night…

ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS

Authored by William Robert Barber

The presumptive sympathetic is that the world’s institutions, governments, behavioral, and general motivation to act is founded on the basis of reason; inclusively, it is accepted that what is reasonable is also rational and sensible. This predetermined understanding is an a priori assumption fixed into the equation of any cognitive analysis prior to (any person, business, or institution) developing a meaningful guidance’s or plan. This ‘presumptive sympathetic’ is automatically interwoven as an accepted constant. But as with the set and drift of ocean currents, counter-presumptive influences alter the predetermined vector often casting adrift the sum that would otherwise be a logical, deductive, and factually conclusive.

I declare that the world of men and institutions are not reasonable, rational, or sensible; in fact, the contrary is more of a truism then the presumptive.

There are many, many, explanations. The natural inclination is to ask, “But why?” Why it is that reasonable, rational, and sensible do not describe nor are a part of the actions of mankind? It starts within the embryo of our creation: We humans must kill other living things in order to survive and our brain is designed to instinctively prevent our own destruction; hence violent conflict has become a human characteristic, as well as, a defining narrative of humanity. We humans are social animals and utilize such social skills to assist in our intrinsic passion to endure and survive. We are cognitively and emotionally susceptible to acting on irrational judgments that one may clinically describe as behaviorally dysfunctional.

Admittedly, since inception we humans have advanced the ideals of basic kindness, love of and for others, we humans are charitable, giving of self, and capable of creating beauty, tolerance, and appreciating the virtues of empathy. On the other hand, it took humanoids one million years to attach a sharpen rock to a stick and less than a century to develop weapons to destroy all living things on the planet. This sort of technological progress, coupled with the history of violent conflict, explicates my contention that the reasonable and rational have little to do with the world, its people, or its institutions.

Therefore, I offer the plausible deduction that, reasonable and rational, or what has heretofore been considered the presumptive basis of a founding assumption, on a stand-alone basis, is at best inadequate (as to an aggregate of facts equating to a solution) at worse a severe misalignment of reality.

“But,” exclaims the contrarian reader, “that’s why we have laws to govern society.”

“Yes,” the realist responds, exactly so.” Then the realist goes on to explain the differing between what the law decrees and what the government decides to enforce. Noting that the discretion expressed by those powerful enough to ignore the law is broad, that such discretion of enforcement feeds into the evidence that such conduct differs substantively to the meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution, the elective’s oath of office, and is in direct deference to the belief that America is a nation of laws not of men.

The realist continues: “Circumvention of the constitution is now passé, enforcement of statutory laws are so discretionary that the practice is close to (at will) abandonment. Politicians lie; spokespersons of the elected evade, political party loyalist, pundits, and representative openly distort the truth; and the media have forsaken their obligatory of, ‘just the facts.’ There is nothing reasonable, rational, or sensible about any of the preceding.

The Obama presidency is a Statist zeitgeist; a Saul Alinsky moment. A time of crony capitalism, a perfect instance of government malfeasance regarding the expenditures of surplus, a costly green energy boondoggle, a ideologically bent department of justice, an utterly stupid approach to an energy non-policy, a state department that ignored the request for security personal to protect our ambassador in Libya, and a White House, for the sake of winning an election will lie and distort the palpable in the hopes that no one will notice.”

One can clearly visualize my contention that there is nothing reasonable or rational in our world or the man running for reelection…