THE PENDING CONFLICT

Authored by William Robert Barber

A clash is coming. This pending conflict over which opposing political ideal prevails is of paramount importance; the outcome will definitively define the operating meaningfulness of America. This forthcoming contretemps is as critical to the country’s future as the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. The victor defines this nation’s character, ethos, and legislative values for generations to come.

Interestingly, for all of us engaged in this ‘struggle-imperative,’ unlike other conflicts, this pending clash is not open ended. We participants know the exact term as well as the “définitif real” of victory — we also understand that defeat means the end of limited government as a viable concept. The American fortitude of existentialism inclusive of the spirit of American exceptionalism will be discarded in favor of the collective common denominator.

The contesting of the electorate’s heart and mind will start on January 5, 2011 and end on November 2, 2012. The political ideas of liberal progressivism versus conservative limited government principles will be debated in every neighborhood’s nook and corner. From the board room to the halls of academia, from shore to shore, throughout the nation; from the kitchen table to gatherings within the various governing locals: the people of the United States will be asked to bend an attentive ear to a persistent political message. Doubtlessly, the following will occur: Motivated by political advertising and the need to enhance readership or viewership, all venues of media will be taking advantage of the pending bonanza. Unions with lots of cash will summon the faithful so to declare their perspective, the ideologically inspired from the left to right political perspective will pontificate, politicians motivated by the reality of counter-interest victory will lustfully enunciate, President Obama’s “bully pulpit” will typify a persuasion that has run amuck.

Obama’s banner of liberal progressive legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare will be assaulted by the Republicans; the Dodd-Frank legislation is another target of Republican interest. The question is, can the 112 Congress approach all federal government spending, line by line, department by department, which of course includes all programs that would not exist were it not for federal funding, and specifically hound federal departments that simply duplicate function or whose function is deemed unnecessary be shut down?

The Democrats know that their current legislation is in danger only if they lose the presidential election of 2012; so their task will be to thwart all Republican non-funding tactics or formal legislative challenges until that election. Naturally, at the same time the Democrats need to build a positive political consensus amongst the voters as well as successfully fight off Republican efforts to dismantle their accomplishments.

I do believe that if conservatives do not sweep the next election — indeed, the sweep must include a super-majority in the two legislative branches — a politically conservative America will be politically stymied by the liberal progressive minority. From a strictly domestic perspective, liberal progressive in the garb of Democrats is not our only concern. If we citizens are not careful with our votes we will end a nation managed by legal opinions. Wherein congress is set-aside in favor of judicial considerations.

Once this nation accepts the government as the prime mover in all things and items of material value, the core of this nation will soften, our intestinal fortitude will no longer chose the courage demanded of leadership. American leadership will drift and flounder and at the risk of an ever increasingly dangerous world this nation will NOT adhere to its worldwide responsibilities. Instead, America will position itself into a bureaucratic-mediocrity wherein the United Nations will assume the role of world leader.

These next two years leading up to the election of 2012, are critical for this nation and its destiny; at risk is the very meaning of America. Additionally, the futuristic interruptive of liberty, individual freedom, and a truly representative limited-government is hanging in suspension awaiting resolution.

Advertisements

CONGRESS 111…

Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MID-TERM ELECTION

Authored by William Robert Barber

The election was almost all it could be…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MOST IMPORTANT OF MID-TERMS

Authored by William Robert Barber

America, as with any other representative government, governs by the will of the people and in keeping with such is defined as a nation of laws, not of men. The meaning of course being that humankind as proven explicitly vulnerable to amoral, immoral, and often dastardly behavior, man is untrustworthy. Hence the trust is placed in laws, not man.

Nevertheless, to place our trust in laws alone is not enough to guarantee our liberty. We have experienced the words of lawmakers and contrasted their words to their deeds. We have all noted the politician who says one thing to get elected and does another to please a special interest or an undeclared political agenda . We have learned not to naively trust in the motives or actions of political parties, congress, or the media, and certainly we know better than to enjoin willfully in the obedient believing of any governmental entity. The aggregate of all this knowing is a steadfast endorsement of askance and doubt as inherent to voter tangibles. The application of government mechanisms are of consistent concern and forces one, as a matter of due diligence as well as sensibility to verify, document, and contest. Distrustfulness is the fare of constancy between the government and the governed.

Some of the questions that this election will answer are: What does America represent to the world outside of this country’s geographical providence? What is the image of America in the minds of Americans? What is the American ethos and spirit? Alongside a vote for or against the Obama administration and its liberal progressive agenda is also, explicitly, a referendum on the preceding questions.

The many friends and enemies of America are watching for our election results. The world wants to know if this nation is now going to endorse Obama’s social, economic, and politically inspired philosophical agenda or turn decidedly against the ideology of liberal progressivism.

In this particular election, the meaningfulness of America, not just for us Americans, is being judged. Are Americans going to amend the traditional central-right ideology of governess and willfully endorse the Obama administration’s politically inspired leftist progressive governing? Or are Americans going to return America to its traditional sense of self? Are voters moving this nation to a European model or are we blatantly rejecting that model in favor of conservative governess?

This must be the most important mid-term election of the modern era… Soon the results will speak louder and clearer than ever before. The very future of conservative America is at stake!

SOON, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN!

Authored by William Robert Barber

November 22nd is nearing. The political parties are battling for positioning, the requirements of harvesting voters set aside prudence and truthfulness; all actions no matter how negative subordinates to victory. Candidates are persuading and the voters are advocating or deciding. Unions are nervous. And all the special interests are pitching their perspective. Contrivances dominate. The liberal progressives are begging for more time. The Republicans swear they have learned their lesson from the last period of governess.

None of the pundits believe the Tea Party influence will persevere — or I should say the pundits are hoping. Obama is talking, talking, and talking; Reid is scared. Pelosi is a cross of indignant and oblivious to populous sentiment. The Blue Dogs are striving to be a bit redder than their recent liberal vote’s evidence. The media is soaking up all the political advertising money and the average Joe is really pissed.

Naturally, I am pleased that the conservative viewpoint is at the forefront of electoral dialogue; but if, by the grace of God and a few Marines, the Republicans should capture the majority in the House of Representatives, I would like to see the present leadership regress into the Hinterland and fresh blood take on the reins of governorship. John Boehner had his chance to practice conservative governing; instead, he sided with the liberal doctrine of unlimited government, endorsed an unfunded Medicare with expenditures of over $449 billion, Medicaid as of 2008 at $351 billion. He voted for TARP and other such legislation, creating a policy result of spend, spend, and spend. That also should be the fate of Eric Cantor and all the other Rhinos that permitted the Bush administration to behave like liberal Democrats. An indicator of real change from the standard Republican appropriators like Jerry Lewis of California is whether Mr. Lewis will chair the House appropriations committee. He is senior. Now will Mr. “pork” be permitted to stand as chair?

The simplicity of truth-telling is still beyond the reach of congress’ leadership. No politician will directly address the dark and foreboding meaningfulness of pension fund obligations; the unsustainable federal and state entitlements, the fiscal deficit and its menacing probabilities, Fannie & Freddie still linger eating up billions of dollars as the housing crises continues to deteriorate. The nonelected-appointed are presently writing the consequences of the ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank legislation, tax law is in purgatory, all the while the business sector is contemplating instead of investing. And the liberal Democrats’ only response is “green energy” and” tax the rich”.

For years now I have been asking myself why these super-educated, lawyers, CPAs, educators, and community organizers – these elected representatives – why wouldn’t they sue their universities for fraudulent inducement? From my advantage point, I strongly feel that they should get their tuition money back; clearly, whatever education they received, did not prepare them for leadership. Hell – they can’t even follow! They can create legislation, tax and spend, and they sure work very hard spending millions of dollars to retain or attain office. Oh, they know how to dress nicely, say nothing in thousands of words or less, they are familiar with celebrities, know other important people — and they know how to dance.

Well, November is just around the bend… I am eager to witness change I can believe in!

MY HIGH SCHOOL REUNION

Authored by William Robert Barber

Over the Labor Day weekend I attended my high school reunion. This is a high school in the bustling midst of colleges and churches in Washington in western-Pennsylvania. Named after the father of this great nation, the town of Washington is proud of its steel and coal heritage. As with every city, there are the better (wealthier) and the worse (poorer) neighborhoods — Washington is no different. East Washington was very much the better. In fact, that section of the city was so influential, it gerrymandered its own school district; hence, East Washington High School.

In 1962 I left the class of ’63 for the Marines. Leaving high school at such a young age was very difficult; but I had no actionable choice. Therefore, the nostalgia for what could have been has, to this day, run the gauntlet of differing emotional intensities, and the act of leaving high school has inundated my mind ever since I boarded that train for Paris Island.

At 17 I was pure of heart and void of mind — perfect material for the Marines. It did not take very long for me to adapt to the military life but I always held the pictures of teachers and classmates of East Washington High School close within me.

So 48 years after I left the 11th grade, I reunited with several of my former classmates. Memories are susceptible to distortions. And from time to time – even in real time – one has just enough of an illusionary glow to reflect the perfect image as indiscernible. As a consequence, after some prompting, our eyes see, to some measure, the influence of yesteryear’s persona. This view of a classmate’s likeness after 48 years of maturity’s effect does have its variance of clarity; nevertheless, once the person’s personality erupts into voice and mannerism, the outer submits to the inner and the classmate of 1962 is revealed.

The reunion experience has reestablished what we all knew: That time is indiscriminate in its destruction. That even for the youthful once-upon-a-time teenager of pure heart and empty head, Father Time will extract its due. Everyone suffers as time ushers us all to a common finality. There is nothing like going to a high school reunion to validate that factual. So for the faint of heart, I would not recommend aging nor attending high school reunions.

There was a little politics in the air… nothing of real passion but I did want to hear more from a former fellow student of East Washington High who was a foreign exchange pupil from Norway. The subject that caught my interest was related to ObamaCare; Britt (sorry if the spelling is wrong) expressed her befuddlement as to why Americans did not want to help their less privileged citizens with healthcare. I did want to follow that up with some more information on her thought process but the situation just did not dictate an opportunity. Britt lives in Norway. From my observation she is a sophisticated, highly intelligent, well traveled person; she is also a person of influence and civil sway. I would be very interested in her reasoning.

For me, the primary issue of consideration is not whether or not an individual American wants to help their less than privileged fellow citizen. The issue for me is the arrogance of the central government to mandate me to pay. By what right of governess do the feds compel me to pay someone else’s healthcare bill? In America, our tradition has always been one of self-governess; in Europe, submission to the rule of government, particularly, after WWII, has been their heritage. Individual liberty for those across the pond has sold its soul to the central planning commission. The practice of socialism has eroded away any spirit of self-determination or the embracing of individualism.

Well, as once said many years ago, “We’re running out of daylight, got to move on.”

RANDOM THOUGHTS…

Authored by William Robert Barber

THE AFGHAN CONFLICT

When I hear pundits, reporters, and journalists speak of the never-ending war in Afghanistan, I am a bit puzzled by the meaningfulness of their apparent frustration. Hasn’t this nation of ours, even before its independence, been steadfastly engaged in violent conflict? If Jamestown of 1619 was the beginning of our nation’s English dominated heritage, hence a reasonable starting point to mark the first violent conflict between 1619 and 2010, how many wars, lethal conflicts, police actions, battles, insurrections, civil uprisings, and violent engagement has this nation of ours participated in? So, if we have been in Afghanistan for these many years, the length of this particular engagement should not be of particular concern. With time as its witness, history has proven that if it wasn’t Afghanistan, it would simply be in a different geography and name.

History has documented, not only for America, that armed conflict is a constant. The only variables are intensity and geography. The issue of concern, for pundits, reporters, and journalists cannot be the length but the reason.

SUMMERS, GEITHNER, ROMER – THE OBAMA ECONOMIC TEAMS

On August 3 of this year, Geithner soberly communicated that the $862 billion government stimulus was still rolling out, business investment was booming, and the economy was poised for sustainable growth. Really! The treasury secretary along with the Obama economic team actually believes their lying eyes. The economic team endorsed a Keynesian economic application to this recession. In essence, the Keynesian approach plus the Obama twist is to print more money and give said printed money away to unionist friends. Of course the Obama twist includes a giveaway to union projects, empathetic political affiliates — and by no means leaves out in the cold their overweight pension impaired bureaucracies.

According to WSJ’s Review & Outlook, Geithner suggested that “government spending can stimulate growth by triggering private demand”, that “tax rates are irrelevant to investment decisions”, that “waves of new regulations can be absorbed by business with little impact on costs or hiring”, and that “politicians can assail capitalists without having any effect on the movement of capital.” Hmm…

President Bush and his economic team, headed by Secretary Paulson, also strutted unabashed in the same economic direction albeit, timidly, with much less of the taxpayers’ cash. Nevertheless, the financial implication was exactly the same waste of money / add on to the federal deficit. Culpable in all of these spend-more policies of Bush & Obama is congress and the aggressive yea votes of both political parties; amazingly, the spending continues as if rain is not wet.

A majority of elected representatives, for a very long time to the present, from one election to another, have successfully navigated thru the self-created shoals and reefs of what they say to get elected versus what they do once in office. The experience indicates that a politician’s loyalty to ideology, political party, and getting reelected trumps representing the common prudent interest of their constituents.

THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY

The time maybe close at hand to form an independent political party; this formation is still out there in the distant future. Presently, we have a choice between the Republican and the Democratic Party; of the two, I choose the Republican. But I swear, if they screw this up like they did the last time…