OUTSOURCING — ANTI-AMERICAN OR A CRIME? REALLY?!

15 07 2012

Authored by William Robert Barber

Outsourcing seems to be the bone of contention between the political clans Obama and Romney. For inexplicable reasons (well, it seems inexplicable only to me), the idea, concept, and practice of outsourcing is anti-American or counter to the working peoples of America… or something like that. The supposition is that outsourcing is counter to America’s economic interest. My assumption is that (obviously I am wrongheaded) every able bodied individual with an 8th grade education would understand that trade is international. That American companies are in every geographic sector of the world and correspondingly, international (non-American) companies are operating in America; outsourcing is not only commonplace, it is the international business norm.

American companies operating in a United Europe can only operate in those countries if they are duly licensed and compliant to domicile rules and regulations. So in Germany, IBM is a German company. The currency is €uro and the labor force is predominately German. Such is the circumstance for every country that for example Procter and Gamble operates within the global economy… Is that outsourcing?

This entire argument is totally stupid. The president willfully and with purposeful intent internationally outsource(d) stimulus funds: he invested in Brazilian oil exploration, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund; besides the State Department spends billions in foreign aid supposedly to garner commercial support, and through the UN’s corruptive means & ways the US sends billions of dollars, willy-nilly, all over the world.

Rome is burning and Obama wants to discuss when Romney left Bain Capital… and in his defense, Romney cannot muster up the truth of the matter.

The problem within the EU is not whether austerity or growth is the answer; the problem is its policy of social solidarity since post WWII. The issue at hand is satisfying an addiction to a belief that entitlement is a basic human right. The enormous social security and entitlement promises made over successive political administrations was founded on the premise that borrowing into the future was the god sent economic surety. People wanted to believe that lifelong protection was feasible, and most importantly that such an entitlement would not infringe on their personal liberty and freedom. So they baked the cherry pie à la mode and ate it all… now what? Wait a minute, isn’t that the issue at hand here in the good ole USA?

There are those that believe that the financial burden must now fall on those that have. No matter if you attained your wealth by the sweat of one’s brow and the risk of one’s own monies, the wealthy are to share their wealth with those that have less. Ideally, this dividing of wealthy resources should go on until everyone is denominated to less rather than more. For the liberal progressives this is the perfect example of fairness…let’s call it righteous fairness.

If spreading the wealth is slowed down by those nasty conservatives, there is always inflation. Negating the U. S. Congress Act of 1792 that declared currency debasement a felony punishable by death because it constituted theft from the citizenry. These very same suggest that inflation is an alternative that either is commensurate with spreading the wealth or certainly an economic model valued enough to implement at will.

Obama and Romney both graduated from Harvard with a degree in something or other; nevertheless, one blast (knowing otherwise) outsourcing as counter to America’s economic interest and the other can’t seem to grasps the reins of deductive logic to declare outsourcing; simply put, in the interest of America as well as a by-product of international trade. I think both should sue the university and get their tuition money refunded. Neither one has learned anything at Harvard…





THE REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO BE

8 09 2011

Authored by William Robert Barber

Where, oh where is the real conservative deal — or should I say candidate? I cannot find the evidence wherein the conservative principles presently expounded by Romney, in the present match up to his governing record much less his past policies and documented positions. My inclination is to believe that he really wants to be president and he goes about the tasks of attaining the office as if it was a corporate marketing endeavor. Therein his campaign strives to increase market share by appealing to popular sentiments rather than ideals that come from their candidate’s soul conviction. In other words, I have a hard time believing he is an ideologically sound conservative. Now of course he is Redwood trees taller, better, stronger, and much more integral to my governing values than Obama; so if that is the choice, the choice is easy.

I assume this is the situation where the bone eats the dog; in order to win an election the appeal must be wider/broader than a politician’s core political ideology. Presumptively that in real terms must mean lying, deceiving, and generally dancing about one’s core beliefs are the voter expectation of a politician. Only in vague generalities does the voter come to understand the inner mindset of the candidates’ particulars. When it comes to actually governing, well, voters have been influenced to understand that there are way too many factors and unanticipated influences to predict a politician’s ideological sway. My response to such nonsense is Gobbledygook…

I am inclined to support Perry over Romney because he blunders about with his truthfulness; his hyperbole, even his inaccurate and misinformation, come from his heart. He does not read from a TelePrompTer; he actually addresses the question asked… I find that amazing. He is a glad handier. He is a populous stirrer upper but he does so, even when he is wrong, from conviction. He knows what it is like to be poor. Hell, he even knows what it is like to be a Democrat.

Admittedly, he will have a tougher rough beating Obama because he may not appeal to a wide enough ideological swath of independents; but in this situation, the freshman senator from Florida would be extremely helpful as Perry’s VP.

When it comes to governing, we the people always get what we deserve. Although I have a special disregard for the contributions of certain boneheaded ever-electable representatives of congress, all the liberal progressives who in the interest of forcing a governess that simply does not work, and those attorneys in staff that really distort the meaning of governess by the people, one must remember and emphasis that the goal of us conservatives is to win a 60-plus majority of the Senate, maintain the majority in the House, and oust Obama from the White House. I do believe America is counting on such an election outcome.