HOPE IS AN ILLUSION

23 05 2016

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.





PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RESPONSE

22 11 2015

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…





PROGRESSIVE-MINDED SILLINESS

18 11 2015

Authored by William Robert Barber

Executed by Islamic thugs bent on bloodletting, the Paris killings, for the sole sake of inciting terror, committed the mass murder of Parisian innocents. These murderers were not provoked; they were not undereducated young unemployed men disenfranchised by a malevolent regime. No synthetic drug numbed their humanness; their baneful behavior was purposeful. They are the followers of Mohammed. Their mission was to murder as many people as possible. Their intent was death. Ordered to kill infidels, dutifully they obeyed.

Focused on the coming glory they aligned their sights and squeezed the trigger indiscriminately killing one innocent person after another, these martyrs, by deed and fact, were comforted in the knowing that soon they would ascend and sit amongst the Saints of Islam.

For the western democracies these protagonists of terror embody the meaning of evil. The eradication of their existence on earth is worth the cost of blood and treasure. However, our president hesitates. Despite the empirically obvious evidence that confronts him, he is cautious; the President insists that the inimical nature of the dastardly “bad” Islamist, once contained by his policy of restraint, will reject the radical interpretation of Sunnism and embrace rational modernism. In the end of all this chaos, the President believes that the bad people will be defeated; goodness will advantage badness and peacefulness will ultimately prevail.

Just like Icarus did not figure on the sun melting his wings of wax and feathers, the president’s political advisors underestimated the vitality of radical Sunni determination. The cautious President Obama has personally cost the lives of tens of hundreds of peoples, facilitated the bondage, raping, pillaging, and torture of thousands, and caused the migration of millions from their homelands. Incredulously, the president and his progressive clan of intellectual elitists wants to blame the invasion of Iraq as the cause and effect of the present.

The president is incapable to lead or follow yet he insists on getting in the way…

Certainly the bad ones are plotting a version of the Paris killings in an American city near you. It is impossible to stop this type of terror and so eventually American innocents will suffer. The only real, true alternative is to attack these Sunni radicals in their place of origin and placement — it matters not where this leads us.

Kill them all. Every single one of these cowardly bastards…





THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAMISM

22 04 2013

Authored by William Robert Barber

With the grace of God, the people of greater Boston, and an impressive assembly of police authorities from federal to state to local, the evil ones were caught.

We find out that the perpetrators are people America reached out to; people that attended our school system, lived for ten years in our culture, our community. These two very dangerous fellows fraternized with American friends, participated in our sports, the oldest one of the two married and had a child in this country. Nevertheless, withstanding America’s willingness to include, educate, and protect, within a portion of the residing ten years these dastardly fellows planned and executed the killing and maiming of the very people that welcomed them and their families to America. 

Militant radical Islam is not a protest of defiance. It is not a means to counter Western influence. Radical Islam is theocratic-fascism wherein the obligation of a believer is to dedicate one’s life to the eradication of all perceived challenges to Muslim culture and laws. To a Jihadist, the holy war is the bridge to heaven and acts of violence including suicide is blessed by Muhammed.

The theorem of militant radical Islam is wrought with misgivings, misnomers, and such gobbledygook one of common understanding must question its vitality of truthfulness; but instead, the royal family of Saudi Arabia financially supports its teachings. And they are not alone in this endeavor.

There are billions of law-abiding Muslims. Islam is a stable religion. Conflict between the West and the Islamic world has been going on since Islam forged their presence out of the Arabian Peninsula. I do not believe that the secular West will convert to the teachings of Mohammed or the Muslims to secularism, much less Christianity. Therefore, for the rational of mind the compromise is tolerance; understanding of one for the other is a reasonable alternative to acts of terror.

But the government of Iran is not rational nor reasonable. The Taliban and Jihadist are not interested in compromise; these fanatics are not willing to agree on a series of understandings. As with other extremists, these militant Muslim radicals kill their brethren. Preaching the dictates of a traditionally strict Sharia, these terrorists are members of an Islamic cult wherein obedience to the uncompromising Caliph of the true Islamic faith is never questioned; this cult of zealots has willfully segregated itself from the nonbelievers and by shouting aloud “God is great” have pledged their lives to Allah.         

This radicalization of Islam is a definitive threat of the very highest priority. We cannot simply wait. We must act proactively to mitigate any and all probable threats to the homeland. For instance Syria is in possession of chemical weapons and the bad guys could get their hands on this stockpile… the question is: what we are doing about this?!

As horrible the bombings in Boston were, imagine the horror of a chemical weapons attack anywhere in the United States. We need to set aside the niceties and deal with the threat directly and affirmatively.





letter from a WASHINGTON POST staffer

5 06 2011

Dear Bill,

I write today about the ever increasing pressure to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. A vote last week drove home the point that this is becoming more and more of a contentious issue. In a bill that was expected to fail by a longshot, the vote actually came to a close failure vote of 215-204, with 26 Republicans joining in the effort with all but eight of the Democrats. This was a significant step for the Democrats to step out against the President in opposition to his public stance. This bill essentially called for the Obama Administration to establish a plan this summer to accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and to pursue a negotiated settlement with “all interested parties”.

This is a substantial shift as just one year ago Congressman McGovern suffered a much greater defeat with 98 Democrats going against a similar piece of legislation. After the heightened coverage surrounding Bin Laden’s death, Americans are more aware that as Congressman Hoyer observed, “Many of the terrorists against whom we are fighting are no longer located in Afghanistan but are in disparate locations, from Yemen to Somalia to Southeast Asia.” This is one factual point that has provided a basis for the sentiment that the U.S. troop’s ongoing mission in Afghanistan is in part a futile waste of U.S. time and resources.

Although the situation in Afghanistan is complicated and may be hard for those without military experience much less inside intelligence information to fully understand or appreciate, there are a few basic observations that can be made. First, there multiple obstacles preventing the U.S. from making progress as intended. Second, Obama has failed to present a clear strategy that people, even those within his own party, can unify behind. For any issue in politics, messaging is always key to rallying support. The problem is that the Administration has not determined a clear exit strategy and therefore, they are unable to communicate a vision of a withdrawal method to the taxpayers who are funding these efforts. It is natural for Americans to grow anxious about an exit strategy when it is clear our troops are not making significant progress in regards to the stated purposes of the mission, namely “nation building”. The white elephant in the room is the fact that the U.S. Government is conceivably not revealing the true purpose for remaining in Afghanistan. This of course is the geographic proximity to a growing threat to the U.S., Pakistan. This is a country in which the core leadership of al-Qaeda is now located in addition to their develop nuclear weapons. The U.S. would not want to vocalize this purpose as it would further strain the delicate relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan. However, there is logic in positioning ourselves in the region in a way that prevents the terrorist groups from growing in size and power. Since this purpose is still only hypothetical, I will just address the current challenges the U.S. faces in Afghanistan which are delaying an immediate exit.

Fist, the U.S. has stated that our troops would be withdrawn when Afghanistan has a permanently stable and well-resourced government. After the fall of the Taliban in 2001, the Bush Administration made the decision to try to rebuild a relatively strong central government and to assist Afghanistan’s economy. Even at the January 28, 2010 “London Conference” and the July 20, 2010 “Kabul Conference”, two international conferences on Afghanistan, the focus was still on expanding and reforming the Afghan convernance.The problem with using this measurement as a prerequisite to exiting, is the fact that Afghanistan may never meet this objective. Current President Hamid Karzai’s failure to forcefully confront corruption within the government has caused a great loss of support by the people. The rife corruption has caused the Afghan citizens to even resent the Karzai government; completely undermining any faith they may have held that America could be trusted in their strategy of rebuilding stable governance. The two more recent corruption stories were that involving the Kabul Bank, and the U.S. sanctions imposed on the money trading firm New Ansari Money Exchange on February 18, 2011. In response to this, the Obama Administration and Congress have begun strategically urging Kazai to publicly confront government corruption. Karzai has in turn resisted these efforts and has become more suspicious of the U.S. motivations.

Secondly, there are several factions of conflicting governance currently controlling this country in various regions and capacities. Amidst the more organized, legitimate bodies, there are also individual “warlords”, local strongmen who wield personal militias and functionally destabilize the progress between the U.S. and Afghan officials. In newly released Defense Department reports in May 2011, they recognized the fact that our security efforts are being challenged by multiple armed groups. Until the U.S.-led offensives launched in 2009, the Karzai government was estimated to control about 30% of the country, insurgent’s controlled 4% officially and were considered to heavily influence or operate in another 30%, and finally local tribes and groups controlled the remainder. As of 2009, the Taliban had named shadow governors in 33 of 34 Afghan provinces. It is incredibly difficult for the U.S. to make progress when the citizens have such varied and divided loyalties to difference governing bodies. Certain regions continue to be potential safe havens for al-Qaeda forces, and therefore General Patraeus has stated the U.S. will not leave these areas. These threatening areas include Kandahar and Helman in the South and Kunar and Paktika in the East, along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, he U.S. has stated it would hand-over security responsibilities to Afghan Security Forces for seven areas of the country in July, even though there is no apparent solidified Security Force to hand off the baton to. The U.S. has failed to strengthen a central governing body that the citizens could coalesce behind. Unless a strategy to accomplish this is formed, the U.S. progress will continue at a sluggish pace at best.

Thirdly, there is the instability that is created by way of their drug creation and distribution, an issue that gets little media coverage. However, some consider the narcotics trafficking to be a core impediment to the U.S. missions. The trafficking of narcotics undermines the rule of law and provides large sums of money to the insurgency, which often times goes untraced. The Taliban makes between $70-$100 million per year off the trafficking of poppy or opium. As the Obama Administration has focused on developing and promoting alternative agricultural crops, the Afghans have turned away from the U.S. and instead to the Taliban for protection of their ability to earn income in what is one of the top industries for Afghans. This counter-narcotics approach has severely back-fired on the U.S. and given the Taliban more control among the locals.

The stated U.S. policy thus far has been to ensure that Afghanistan will not again become a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. The Obama Administration has asserted that it is pursuing a well-resourced and integrated military civilian strategy intended to pave the way for a gradual transition to Afghan leadership that is to be completed by 2014. To support this mission, an additional 51,000 U.S. forces were authorized in 2009 reviews to increase U.S. troop levels to 99,000. However, Obama has also said we intended to have a relationship with Afghanistan that will include military involvement long after 2014, an indication that the administration sees no foreseeable end to our presence.

Amidst the tension over this issue, is the continual increase in Government funding for expanded efforts. The House Appropriations Defense subcommittee just released their Pentagon budget bill for FY 2012 which contained $119 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government continues to spend a substantial portion of our defense budget in a country where there is a lack of clear vision for efforts moving forward. It is now time for the Administration to communicate their intentions to the American people, in a way that is nonthreatening to our security. At some point we will have to determine whether it is worth the billions of dollars and other resources spent to remain in a region when we continue to take one step forward, two steps back.

Sincerely,

Hill Observer





OBAMA THE ENABLER

2 01 2010

Authored by William Robert Barber

The continuances by politicians, news print, media, pundits, and entertainers posing as journalist, of dancing around the deductively obvious instead of objectively stating the transpiration of a particular event is intellectually stifling. Recently, we experienced a terrorist-crazy load up with explosives, board a US bound plane with the absolutely clear intent of killing everyone on that plane and as many people on the ground in Detroit as possible. This was a premeditated attack by Al-Qaeda; an act of war perpetrated by this nation’s sworn enemy; instead of shipping this crazy to detention in Guantanamo he was issued an attorney, read his rights, and jailed pending a court hearing to determine whether or not he will be detained. This methodology of legal-disposition is bird-brain stupid. This terrorist attacked US citizens, their property, and their institutions — and we treat him as though he robbed a bank.

Withstanding, the Obama administration’s failure to stop this terrorist from boarding the plane in the first cause and experiencing the ignominy of listening to Secretary of Home Land Security on Sunday last tell the national television audience that everything went according to plan, that the system worked, he was a lone wolf, and other etcetera nonsense. The president added coal to the fire by doing the very best he could to not call this terrorist incident a terrorist incident.

The ever so naive Obama is befuddled. After all, he has addressed the reasonableness of extending his hand of peace and tolerance with his speech in Cairo. He has added the rational mixture of “let’s all work together for the common good” and has apologized (repeatedly) for US unilateral aggressiveness; he even eliminated the use of the phrase ‘War on Terror.” And most importantly, as a good faith gesture, he is closing Guantanamo because the prison is an anathema to terrorist, might be terrorist, almost terrorist, Muslims world-wide, and of course without a doubt of hesitation by Obama, such a closing will significantly hamper Al-Qaeda recruiting.

However, this is not the only instance of dancing around the deductively obvious. Congress is addressing the passing of healthcare legislation. Noting that few have actually read the aforesaid, and most who have not read the pending legislation admit that if they read it they would not understand its content. Whatever happened to the concept of prudent oversight and willfully deliberate due diligence? We Americans are allowing the political majority to ramrod critical legislation as if the issue was transparent, commonly decipherable, and opaque. The majority agrees, it is not perfect. Indeed, interestingly, many of the senators that voted for the legislation did so only after insuring their state was except from its pending pecuniary obligations. Blatant payoffs and self-serving earmarks are the sugar Reid utilized to insure the 60-vote requirement. If a private company acted in this manner, the attorney-general would indict for violations, criminal and civil.

In order for the Obama liberal progressive to fashion the nation to accept the transition to socialism, under the guise of ‘for the common good,’ they must stymie all democratic procedures by means within their power, extralegal or by ad-hoc actions. Their goal is to supplement the principle of laws and general rational precepts with an ever enhancing amplitude of governing bureaucracy; the more complex the regulatory compliance, the easier for the socialist to control the process of decision making. The goal of Obama is to take vast powers and legislate under a platform of ordinances and decrees.

The Obama administration coupled with the congressional majority is the single greatest threat to America’s traditional understanding and practice of liberty and freedom.