A BELIEF AND TO BELIEVE

Authored by William Robert Barber

A large amount of multimedia effort is devoted to the squabbling between equally smart persons from divergent political perspectives. For the most part, the counter-parties all went to the best schools, were feed ample amounts of protein, loved by their parents, have a loving personal supportive family, and think of themselves as people doing the right thing. Many are licensed professionals, proprietors of Masters Degrees, PhD’s, and veterans boasting decade’s of real-life experience. Despite all such commonalities these propagators of differing ideologues ardently and often abruptly disagree on the most fundamental basis of political discourse.

How in the world could two graduates from world class educational institutions diametrically disagree on politics, societal issuers, cultural values, legal interpretive(s), and a long list of other important concerns? How does one find the truth of the matter if both sides of an issue are so balanced in credibility?     

I think the answer starts to reveal itself upon defining the difference between one’s faithful belief and one’s reconciliation to believe.

A persuasion (one of many) in the forming on one’s political ideology is conditioned on the milieu of predeterminations; meaning determinations that are founded by a thesis or basis of a belief from a persuasive family member, respected peer, a teacher, and other such influences that are inclusive of one’s sphere.  

For example, acolytes and apparatchik’s process inductively induced information via a guiding principle of devout belief. A belief is a faithful conviction of righteous certainty that does not necessarily require deductive analysis, logic, or fact.  A belief is conjecture; a facile anecdote often emitting from a factoid void of evidence. A belief is a contrivance articulated as an irrefutably definitive. A belief can be as truthfully certain as magnetic north.

On the other hand, to believe requires the experience of a phenomenon of observation wherein the process of deductive analysis, logic, and fact induced by the measure of qualitative and quantitative is the required methodologies to achieve a conclusive believe.  

To subject a closely held belief to the deductively applied rudiments necessary in order to establish to believe and reject a belief is as difficult as it is for Sisyphus to roll the boulder to the top of the mountain; asking Putin to restore western style democracy in Russia or for Syria’s magister to stop killing his own people.

Now cometh Obama, President of the United States, for this politician the differing of definition between belief and believe is irrelevant. What matters is winning the election. For this politician it is unimportant if one speech contradicts another. That misdirection, exaggeration, or outright lies are incorporated and intrinsic to his campaign’s release of information to the public. For the president it is perfectly fine to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to disregard. For President Obama winning this forthcoming election is an essential objective in the pursuit of one specific goal: To eradicate existentialism as a part of being an American so to impose an egalitarian entitlement state upon this nation’s culture wherein the liberal progressive theology of social justice replaces the heretofore tradition of, “a nation of laws not of men.”

The president is a political economic apostle of dirigisme or planification. He is a politician-protagonist obsessed by his image and character. A socialist of the French tradition; a man infatuated by the axiomatic power of his persuasion, a man who considers his reign as president the Pièce de résistance of political generalship.

In the election of 2008 President Obama beguiled the voters if reelected after almost four years of actual experience then indeed this nation has taken an abrupt left turn from its historical preference and will suffer the consequences of such a reelected Obama for a very long time. Anyway that’s a belief I can believe in…

The Why’s of Hillary’s Loss

Clintons Are Dead All Hail Obama
Authored by:  William Robert Barber

The post-contest pundits have a number of reasons as to the whys of Hillary’s loss to a politically far left, untried, multiracial contester who considers himself a member of the black community; most of these reasons are obvious all of them covered under the umbrella of strategic and tactical mistakes.

Nevertheless, what stood out (at least for me) from these obvious campaign mistakes was the most willing, almost gleeful, abandonment of Clinton by the purple toga elements of the traditional Democratic Party. Even more outstanding, many of the once Clinton faithful, who in fact, directly, owe their present political positioning to a Clinton era anointment, dropped Clinton in favor of Obama with willful disdain and abrupt disregard. For these former members of the Clinton political family it was if they were under some form of extortion or parental abuse and finally the kidnapped family member was freed or the children had grown up.

Now there could be another reason for the failure of the Clinton political machine falling short on achieving their party’s nomination. The reason has ample historical reference and fits tightly into the Democratic primaries actual; possibly, the core leadership of the party decided they could control and manipulate an Obama administration much better than they could manage a Hillary Clinton.

After all, the entrenched Democratic leadership is interested in their personal preservation of preeminence; one should not minimize the grand November election opportunity: To control congress and the presidency. Once in place with a probable veto proof majority the Democrats will have the ultimate weapon of political utility. Their first offensive will be to chastise the chosen corporate belligerents via the statutorily monetarism of private interest into public power. The Clintons have too many friends within the corporate hierarchy to allow the kind of change the Obama faithful would straightforwardly implement. Interestingly; and somewhat contradictory, all of the Democratic leaders are multimillionaires, Ivy League members of the patrician class whose ethos of elites’ belief prompts the ideal that their wise benevolent consul of paternal superintendence would be cheerfully received by a President Obama.  It is their reckoning that a President Obama would surrender, (for less consideration then a President Clinton) the governing prerogatives, as long as; he is appointed the Prince of the Canaille and permitted to speak to their salubrious need for communitarian socialism paid for by a tax policy of ultra progressive implication resulting in a meaningful redistribution of wealth.

Bread and beer to the multitude and power to the multimillionaires of the Democratic purple toga; Obama the uncommon politician who will change Washington as it has never been changed before is a beckoning reality.

Obama’s Position on Iran – What is it?

Obama’s Position on Iran – What is it?
Authored by: Ann Crouse
Posted by: Debi ONeil

Recently, Obama was quoted as saying “contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear”. That statement clearly does not agree with what he said during the CNN/Youtube debate:

Question – Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

Reply – “I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them – which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration – is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them”.

He was also quoted in May as saying “Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off of the planet.'” “The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn’t have one.”

It seems as though Obama’s stance on negotiations with Iran have changed due to what he feels are the desires of the country. He now touts a “tough and principled diplomacy” compared to ‘’we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward..”

How can you negotiate with terrorists? His belief that Iran has no nuclear weapons is both naive and dangerous.

We also must remember that Iran has the second largest oil reserve in the world. However, since the regime headed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken over, the production of petroleum has declined from 6 plus million barrels a day to under four million barrels a day. 85% of all of Iran’s revenues come from their oil and gas exports. Iran presently does not have either the technology or foreign investment it needs to sustain or increase its petroleum output. This causes vulnerability that creates isolation from the rest of the world and minimal economic growth. The Iranian people support the nuclear quests of the present regime, but are not willing to pay the price of international isolation.

If Obama were to try to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it would send the message to the Iranian population that they are part of the international mix and must be dealt with accordingly. Such a message would add power to the present regime…not topple it.

It is also important to remember that Iran’s present regime wishes to destroy both the United States and Israel. You cannot be “pro Israel” without prohibiting Iran from becoming a nuclear powerhouse. That alone would give Iran the support it needs from other “rogue” forces that also wish to destroy the United States.

Democrats Insist on Eradicating American Values

Democrats Insist on Eradicating  American Values.
Authored By:  William Robert Barber

The Democratic nominee spoke last night of his vision of America; an America wherein corporations would clean up their own pollution, where the jobless would find work, wherein, the federal government would hire an army of school teachers, pay them well, guarantee, as a birthright, a college education to every American child, so on and so forth. Promises of the extraordinary to those who sympathize with the Obama definition of Change is the nominee’s calling to his supporters.

Of course corporations do clean up their own pollution, unemployment is, more or less, at 5%; the federal government does not hire school teachers, and all of the illegal’s will be pleased to hear that now when they enter this country from Mexico and have children, these children will have as a birthright a free college education.

Is it possible for a good looking youthful politician possessing oratorical skill, rhetorical eloquence, with the contextual of his speech full of silly nonsensical examples of governmental policy and initiatives to actually be the President of the United States?

For me it is no longer simply the Democrats move to the political left or the Republicans perverting their own conservative philosophy with excessive spending or their persistence on unilateral self abuse; now both political parties, but particularly, the Democrats, insist on eradicating heretofore staunch uniquely American values.

Along with the premise that those ennobled, elected to public office, few who do truly understand what is best, not just for Americans; but, indeed for all mankind should rule. These self appointed elite of academic pedigree will quash, by statutory laws, by regulation, by the redirecting of funds, and by the establishment of a new degree of priorities, existentialism in favor of dependence. Americans will depend on government and its governing ennobled to protect the citizen from all things contrary to the interest of big government.

Does anyone actually believe there is such an animal as free medical care? The robber baron Democrats will sack the rich village a couple of time max; after that the villagers will hide the resources, stop producing the resources, or move their facilities to a different country. Now I did not attend Harvard but that much is clear to me.

Like it or Not – Since 9/11 Bush’s Policy Has Stymied all Attempts by Terrorist Towards Attacking the U.S.

Senator Obama’s Simple Presumption
Authored by: William Robert Barber

Those of the liberal persuasion equates reasonable, rational, and sensible with the essential characteristics for the implementation of a sound and successful foreign policy; liberals for sure, but, particularly, those liberals on the far left of the American political spectrum, assume problems solvable via the utility of logic and deductive application. The assumption is that the rouge nation’s leadership appreciates, understands and is indeed purely seeking some sort of common ground methodology, possibly, a clarification of policy is the only distance to be marched, or maybe something simple like a US military deployment, carelessly made, that has not been understood by these rouge states and as soon all of these encumbrances on friendship have been cleared up, peace in our time will prevail. Pulling our forces out of Iraq even Afghanistan maybe the proper policy for our enemies to reconcile with the American people-surely, if such a pullout took place the Europeans would embrace us as friends.

Liberals believe that the World-Wide distribution of American military might is not a protective shield; but, a provocation of imperialistic remembering; a clearly demonstrated willingness of America to use physical force to enforce our foreign policy or worst…to enforce our sense of righteousness on an unwilling international community. Accordingly, if only we Americans would change our government’s policy these rouge nations would light a candle and the current behavior of unremitting hostility (that our present policy promotes) would abruptly end.

History evidences quite the contrary of these closely held liberal beliefs; nevertheless, such lack of historical precedence, does not sway those committed to a leftist political agenda to consider the merits of an alternative prospective or even to rethink the success of existing policy. Instead, the provocateurs of change, with no need of an evidentiary tangible, intent on servicing a contrarian prospective for the sake of some indefinable contrarian objective are promoting a foreign policy with lots of carrots and no stick.

Senator Obama founds his international policy on the simple presumption that today’s policy is a failure; therefore, let’s try something new; maybe, a new differing policy creates a successful result. However rouge nations may indeed be the antitheses of reasonable, rational, and sensible; they maybe driven by a diabolical need to destroy America and all things considered American influenced. I wonder in that atmosphere of hostile disregard how would the Obama negotiations respond?

Since 9/11, President Bush’s policy has stymied all attempts by terrorist towards attacking the nation; his policy has protected the flow of oil out of the gulf; no matter the growing strength of Iran’s limited partnership in the Middle East all the partners understand their limitations. Israel is assured of protection evidenced by the physical presence of US forces and America is wining the hearts and minds of the unwilling.

Diplomatic solutions to issues of angst between America and its counter parties are enhanced by the look-and-see surety of American power. Less the awesome power of American force of arms, for Americans, as well as, all those democratically inspired peoples of the world, the alternative to American power is domination by Russia or China; any who doubt my conclusive, read a few chapters of world history.

Democratic Message Once Again Off Message

Less Nonsense and More Sense
Authored by: William Robert Barber

This latest rife over President Bush’s speech in Israel; wherein, the president’s noted that appeasement is a fallible policy, utilizing Britain’s experience with the German government of 1938 as an example, whereby, Mr. Obama and friends’ went ‘berserk’ with awfully silly responses, has once again moved the Democratic Party off message. I ask of readership, how difficult would it have been for the Democrats to simply agree that appeasement is a fallible policy? They could have gone on to describe Mr. Obama’s offer to sit with no preconditions and hold face-to-face presidential level meetings with nation states accused by most western states as rouge nations who support terrorist and the policy of terror as a means to some difficult to define end. They could go on to emphasis the Obama policy of speaking with our enemies as a viable alternative to the past and current foreign policy; accepting that such a new strategy with those who pledge the destruction of Israel, as well as, America is a ‘surge diplomacy,’ nothing less and nothing more.

But instead, the Democrats decide firstly that the President had pointedly highlighted Mr. Obama and secondly, the president with malicious fore thought was aiming to disrupt the election process. Well, now they will be sending their representative on all the talk shows to defend their silly response instead of staying on message.

I do think the electorate deserves less nonsense and more sense…

Political Media Dance

When Will They Ever Learn

Authored by: William Robert Barber

Events, international and national, serious very concerning events; many that rises to the level of possibilities portentous and foreboding; events that threaten our way of life, even our very existence as an open society, these events, although, as real and forecast able as the setting of the sun, remain, in the mind of the many, a subject of disregarded and indifference.

One such national event: Political parties have evolved into huge money raising machines; an entire business infrastructure is now in place to elect their particular slate of candidates. Media embraces the entire concept of elections as sharks to blood; millions upon millions of dollars are delivered to media by political parties. There is a common belief evidenced by empirical deduction that the candidate with the most money to spend in a political campaign has the upper hand on the election outcome.

Events, metaphorically like the burning of Rome, continue while the political parties and their sponsored protagonist orchestrate the media dance to the rhythm of emotionally stimulating sound bytes, misinformation, disinformation, uncontestable lies, and this relatively new phenomenon prompted by media-advisors to the electoral contester of delivering serialized nonsensical distortions of the factual by the utility of post-stupid speech clarification. The contextual essence factor of these post-stupid clarifications is to say almost anything other than the truth. Their adage must be that anything but the truth will set one free; a very President Clinton-like approach to dealing with what is truthful.

This is the age of weapons of mass destruction. A WMD attack is not a forthcoming HBO special; such an attack is well within the realm of reality. We actually do have people, groups, institutions, nation states, irrational fanatics who support a religiously motivated intensely dedicated number of militant Muslims who have declared war on America and Americans. Of course this paragraph does not apply to former President Carter whose mindfulness lives somewhere between Never-Never-Land and Obama’s foreign policy.

Excessive taxation is often synonymous with erroneous taxation either or both descriptions impair individual freedom, empowers government, and is counter intuitive to the sensibility of defining government as a righteous utility of the people. As excessive taxation is implemented those taxed resist, maneuver, and redirect their investments in a differing opportunity; after all, it is a global business environment. Hence and therefore, less tax, in the quantitative is actually collected.

Nevertheless, and despite the arguments to the contrary elected officials of the accepted political party colors red and blue are focused on getting into office or staying in elected office. The consequence is that the difficult issues that prompt the events of deep concern even those of a foreboding factual will not be meaningfully addressed. Because of this political system reality, the citizen voter is a dismissive resource; the government is too strong, too empowered, the appointed non elected bureaucracy is entrenched and the citizen voter has its head deeply impeded in the sand. The people are divided between those who live as if in a Pepsi Cola commercial and those who produce the commercial.

As with all serious redirections of effort and concern an event will prompt the citizen to lift its head and smell the gun powder…naturally, for many the prompting event will be too late.