Mexico Benefits Financially from Illegal Immigration

By:  William Robert Barber

Since Ancient times nation states have expressed concerns over the movements of peoples into their domicile.  Presently, the United States is and has for some time been experiencing the invasion of millions of Mexicans into its’ mainland; these peoples, poor by birthright and impoverish by the lack of opportunity, in the interest of seeking a better life have fled their native land.  Interestingly, Mexico benefits financially, in no small manner, from this illegal migration; these benefits include millions of dollars worth of cash remittances from US to Mexico, any and all cost of social services, medical, education, and the cost of dying.  The Untied States is now libel for all of these services; Mexico utilizes the illegal immigration of its citizens as a highly profitable export into the USA.  An export that cost Mexico absolutely nothing; receiving in return, monthly cash residuals totaling millions of dollars.

Read More »

Politicians and their political nonsense

Compromise is an accepted measure of practice of politics
By William Robert Barber 

America of today has five all important elements of immense concern:  Immigration, the war, government entitlements, the costly methodology of civil litigation, taxation and the immensely frustrating irritant; it is imperative that these elements of concern (and the immensely frustrating irritant) are immediately addressed.  Nonetheless, these all important concerns cannot be affirmably managed because of the politicians and their political nonsense.  Both parties are overly focused on their preservation of power and this insistence on power preservation predominates and suppresses all obligations, responsibilities, and sensibilities.

This craziness, this lunacy, this behavioral malfunction of sensibility has been a vicious element of the democratic process since the concept of democratic governing in ancient Greece.  Within the United States surely since George Washington’s second administration and the start up of political parties’ sensibility was in deeply sincere competition and at times was totally replaced by loyalty, nepotism, affiliation, and networking or cross purpose connections.

In politics a practice is accepted as long as in some fashion the result is perceived to mutually benefit the contesting parties and or their political affiliations.  There is a political commonality of acceptance, wherein, one will tribute the least in the interest of compromise; such compromise may of course be in final form the contrary of original intent; nevertheless, compromise is an accepted measure of practice of politics.

Peace is not an attainable goal.

Gandhi was shot dead; so much for the redeeming grace of a peaceful man…he was killed by his naivete, his arrogance, and his inability to access correctly the measure of violent conflict as the significant prime mover of humankind. Peace is not an attainable goal but a libelous fraud perpetrated by those seeking the wisdom of the Wizard of Oz.

Considering the Nature of Humankind, How Could Peace Be a Viable Goal for a Powerful Nation State?

 By William Robert Barber

For ten thousand years mankind has sought the destruction of ones neighbor. Examples of such destruction abound; history could not be read without multiple references to violent battles and deathly wars. Withstanding, the voluminous amount of evidence detailing humankinds’ violent-behavior there are individuals and organizations that espouse and perceive peace as a realistic viable goal. Considering the nature of humankind, how could peace be a viable goal for a powerful nation state?

Nevertheless, peace is the founding credo of influence for the political left; the mantra of reasoning for the often violent peace with demonstrators of political change and the guiding light of their leadership. It is as if the study of history was absent from their education or that deduction was never a plausible method to their logic.

The world is dangerous; reasoning does not govern worldwide discourse; morality is not a tangible factor of transacted concern; within the scope of human endeavor only power exist. Power is the prime mover of all action between nation states. A historical maximum is that: Weakness will be triumphed by strength and perceived weakness will always be challenged. Vigilance coupled with the will to act is the burden of leadership and the necessary fortitude of the nation state’s citizenry. Once a nation state has been attacked or lethally terrorized by even subtle bullying (in today’s world of nuclear-biological-WMD) there is no substitute for a solid determined specifically targeted offence. Therefore offensive is the weapon of the ready; defense is the reaction of too little too late; thousands or more are already dead.

However, a determined offensive cannot survive the challenges and hurdles of a determined ‘against-any-policy’ political opposition that offers no acceptable specified alternative of protection; thus far the Democratic Party solely seeks to enjoin in a policy of disgruntled contrarians. This policy is a menace to sensibility, a nation state’s right to invoke its sovereign interest, and to protect its peoples right to life. Despite a recent national election that validated the current administration’s right to govern, these Democratic Party contrarians for the sake of no more than general opposition offering no reasonable counter-policy seek to influence the populous’ will to win the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to disable the nominees of world-wide terror.

The United States of America is at war. The country’s troops are in the field of combat. Elected to national public office contrarians should tender their concerns in private sessions not on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives; the battlefront in today’s field of combat includes the world-wide media; a media that does effect popular opinion. The enemy knows and appreciates the power of popular opinion. The stakes of this administration’s foreign policy are very high; human life is at risk; the effects of policy disagreements are lethal and should not be produced to weaken the nation’s stated objectives and goal.

Nevertheless, elected to high office Americans of liberal leftist persuasion, in a time of war, aid and abet the interest of our enemies with provocative anti-American rhetoric animated and delivered with the bravo of God speaking to His Chosen Peoples. Often scurrilous in context, opportunistic in timing, and by the specific choice of language personally offending to the country’s President and duly elected members of their opposing political party; I assume the motivation for such is political because I can not ascertain any tangible counter policy offered to the electorate. Do these liberal leftist provocateurs harbored within the Democratic Party not understand that their frothy declarations and statements are immediately on the air waves, web sites, and television media of the enemy? Does it not concern them that unwarranted, even inflammatory name calling and ridiculous accusations such as blatantly suggesting on the floor of the United States Senate that the guards policing the captured terrorist in Guantan’amo are behaviorally Nazis-like have a direct negative effect on endangering our troops in combat? Where is the sensibility of such a declaration?

I can understand the Democratic Party’s opposition to their counter party however is there no civility to their opposition? How can rational, sensible, specific counter proposals be considered when none are offered? I do not believe that the policies of a nation state’s elected government nor its constituency is well served by casting bombastic ridicule and demeaning rhetoric; the interest of the nation is above the interest of any political party; demagoguery is not an effective method of persuasion. Today the nation’s armed forces are at lethal risk; the nation is at war. It seems reasonable that if there is opposition to current policies and surely opposition is a constant no matter the administration, the contrarians should present a viable alternative in a civil transparent manner.

The Controversy of a Weak U.S. Dollar and Its Negative Effect for the United States onto the Global Economy

By: William Robert Barber

To mimic the infamous charge of The Light Brigand; opinion to the left; opinions to right; damn the consequences to the front, onward into the breech sways the weak dollar onto the world’s economy. Upon even cursory observation the average layperson surely understands that goods and services purchased by conversion from dollars to euro, yen, pound, or a number of global currencies (at the current exchange rate) is an expensive endeavor. Conversely, goods, services, commodities, real estate, equities, bonds, and other such cause for purchase items are priced reasonably (even at a bargain) for those converting their particular domestic currency to the globally weak dollars.

The benefit to the dollar holder within the economies of world trade emphasizes the tangible competitiveness of United States production; because the weak dollar is sharply facilitating the pricing marketability of its goods thus rendering solid profits for such goods in the world’s marketplace. The weak dollar has increased prices for US exported goods to foreign destinations while at the same instance inventories of foreign goods remain in abundance thereby offering the US consumer viable purchase options. US citizens have curtailed or limited foreign travel; for the American’s their cash has better value within their own country. Thus, American business in every industry is benefiting from this current pricing of the dollar within the world-wide economy.

The value of the dollar has been measured and recorded historically against other notable tender for a considerable period of time. It is that very tradition of measurement that in fact stresses with concerning degree the attention of the world’s economist, financial pundits, and speculative traders. For example since 2002 the dollar has dropped 38 percent against the euro, 23 percent against the yen and 25 percent against the Canadian dollar; and most professional harbingers suggest a continuance of same.

The worst-case scenario for the USA because of weak dollar and the continuance of debt service is that foreign central banks prompted by a non-aligned confederation of investors might simply sell all their dollar holding investments; as a result, America will spin into a recession and finally the world into a depression. To that silly procrastination I say without any hesitation: Balderdash!

In 2004, the U.S current-account deficit is estimated to have reached $650 billion or a record 6.5 percent of the nation’s economy. The United States inhales the world’s products and is insatiable in its consumption. The U.S. consumer is the clear beneficiary of these transactions identified as the current-account deficit. U.S. consumers demand and receive from international importation the finest most technologically advanced products at the very best prices. No other country enjoys the depth, distribution, diversity, and depth of inventory of such products than the U.S. consumer.

Foreign businesses, with the earning from selling their products to U.S. consumers, have purchased within the last recorded year $1.8 trillion of corporate bonds and $1.5 trillion of stocks; the crutch of the naysayer persuasion is that these very investors of U.S. equities and bonds could sell their interest in favor of their own national investments and to the abrupt detriment of the dollar. Well, lets analysis this possibility; if one is to sell into the market the price will immediately drop and continue to drop until there are no buyers on the other side of the needed to sell equation. So the doomsayers with their foreign sell off scenario has run right into the wall of sensibility; if a seller wants to hold value and still sell, that seller can not run the market into a sell off; plus, one needs to consider SEC restrictions on the practicality of exactly that, stocks held by restricted persons such as principles, board members, etc. In contras of course to equities, certainly, when holding federal or state sponsored debt instead of accepting the interest one could at term or at a discount to cash paid in liquidate the principle in favor of another investment offering more security or finding the same risk ratio but one that pays an enhanced premium. But than, national debt instruments must always compete in the marketplace it is in such competition that pricing is achieved. It is not reasonable to equate the largest consumer nation in the world as the nation not to purchase debt instruments from—it is illogical. Factually, the financial logic is quite the opposite of the proposed sell off. However the cleanest reason to discount this massive sell off doomsday theory is that those benefiting (the foreign business investors directly profiting from sales to U.S. consumers) the very most from selling into the U.S. economy would be the ones who would contrive to destroy the golden goose. Such a possibility is simply naïve; a contrivance without factual believability, surely, every party and counter party to a trade transaction understands that the result is about the money; mutual satisfaction is a continuum, the very ethos of future dealings, the result must be a win-win for all.

Note that when forming the general information, specific statistics, and endless financially admitted contrivances that content the formula of current-account deficits; foreign investments into the U.S. corporate equities, bonds, real estate, or closely held private entities are totally absent from the compilation. These vestments of cash infusion into the American economy are not considered as a counter weight to the current-account deficit; it is as if to suggest that transactions wherein the foreigners cash-in to U.S. Treasury Notes or that other such purchases represent a non-purchase of American goods or services. Yes, the USA may not have sold them more cars, planes, or shoes than we purchased from them but we do sell them the right to take trillions of dollars of U.S. corporate risk at a substantial profit for both the buyer and the seller. We willingly allow foreigners to invest in our infrastructure, real estate, debt as long as they pay all the appropriate taxes; and they (these foreigners) cheerfully submit to the opportunity.

Those who concern themselves with the evaluating of the current-account deficit stated by today’s generally accepted standard of measurement actually want Americans to purchase less imported goods; the discipline required to reach this goal is by consuming less and to export more. Ridicules! The American consumer pays less for more because our purchasing power demands a competitive price. But more importantly, from a percentage of profit on volume, we Americans make more money from imported goods than the importers make on the original sale to us. The plurality of disperse on profit taking is extensive and varied. Not only does the wholesaler retailer mark up their goods to pay U.S. employees, support payroll taxes, social security, local, state, and federal levies but America also benefits from financing fees, insurance requirements, spare parts sales and the labor services that accompany. Without these importers and their market priced products a whole profitable industry would be severely disabled. It is absolute nonsense that the sellers control the market everybody who have ventured into business recognizes the power of the transaction rests with the willing buyer.

Many suggest that American manufacturers suffer the consequence of imported goods and thus can no longer profitably function; the natural law of nature is in unison with the law of the marketplace–adapt or die. So American industry has adapted to the present demands of the global market; they have diversified their investments and moved (manufacturing plants) what was sensible to Mexico, China, Europe, Africa, and South America. This is not a new phenomenon indeed this diversification of investments has been going on for thousands of years. American banks are every where in the world; IBM, Xerox, Procter & Gamble, General Mills, Gillette, truly hundreds of brand name American companies are posted though out the world. When these companies are domiciled in France they are counted as part of the French GNP; when in Spain as a Spanish company, in England as English; but they are American companies benefiting directly to and from the populous therein stationed. These American inspired companies sell into the American market; their equity ownership is sold via the stock market to American shareholders, as well as, all the peoples of the world who care to invest. Everyone can make a buck or two or loose a buck or two all on needs to do is risk their cash; the marketplace has no other requirements.

I do not believe anyone measures the current-account deficit between New York and California; surely, these states trade amongst themselves but no one is concerned about the difference. The global economy in my view is similar. What matters to the seller is that there is a willing buyer. What matters to the buyer is price, delivery, warrantees, and tangible or intangible enhancement as a result of the exchange. America is the largest single consumer nation that has ever existed. America is also the most powerful military machine ever recorded; fit that fact into the mix as one contemplates the world and it economic vitality. America protects world trade from any mean spirited or ill intentioned adversary and it is the U.S. consumer that pays for that intrinsically important cost. Since WW II the United States have stationed it military forces around the world; these bases have positively added to the economies of Germany, Japan, Korea, Panama, England, Spain, Italy, and on and on and on yet there is no tax levied on these countries. These bases and their distribution network of security allowed major countries to develop an economy that sells it goods for a profit to the very protector. This has been and is today a tremendous platform of mutual benefit to those who export and for the USA the omnipotent importer.

The world depends on America…there is no economic downside to a weak U.S. Dollar. The only true economic downside with horrific consequences is a weak America; an America that looses its will to prevail against all contesters; an America that ceases to believe that all things are possible; an America that submits to compromise in place of uncompromising ideals or an America that is no longer willing to shed its blood for what it knows is right; if the world looses these described downsides that represent the essential ethos of American cultural values than all is lost.

However, there is a constant persistence by those in the ‘know’; those who are obviously cognizant of ‘all things relevant’, the self appointed custodians of the seemingly easy to accept certain maxims of financial design that feed rather flowingly into the content of the naysayer primary concern. The media is particularly passionate regarding the apocalyptic possibilities of the mounting U.S. current-account deficit Pundits besiege talk shows both in television and radio with baseless predilection of pending financial doom. These special persons, scripted and by impulse, in political concert with and acting by unilateral political nonalignment all concur on date uncertain that one currency is valued higher or lower than another; such evaluation of value is decided at one moment in time over another moment in time; governments in unison or not, by design or by fault, feed into the pricing of currency by varied tangible and intangible means. Every participating entity is an amoral provocateur in the insincere persuasion of currency speculation; each seeks an advantage over the other, each practice a multitude of strategies and tactics, some are defensive, some offensive, often they faint a move to the right while moving to the left, this utilization of heaven and earth resources are dedicated to one end. The goal is to receive more for less without ceding the position of minimal risk awhile profiting by the largest margin that the marketplace allows. Despite the goal stated above, all reason acknowledges that mutual satisfaction is a requirement between buyer and seller as in importer to exporter. Consequently, respective of any and all prevailing nonsense perpetuated by the naysayer predictor of cataclysmic possibilities trade results are founded on mutual satisfaction; such a result is reasonable, and reason will always in the long run of international trade always win.

The current circumstance of a weak dollar and a huge imbalance of trade between America and its importers is a result of inaccurate computation wherein the purchasing of US securities, infrastructure, and debt is not a within the designed formula that form the net number sum for current account balance. It is as simple as that. The USA enjoys in fact a trade surplus not a trade deficit.

The Obvious and Transparent

If  it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck more than likely the subject measured is a duck.

Authored by William Robert Barber

If the Islamic terrorist proclaim they are going to destroy the financial infrastructure of the western (mostly) Judeo-Christian world; if they threaten to and than do indiscriminately kill people regardless of age or gender, uniformed or civilian, the innocent, as well as, their not Muslim enough fellow Muslims. If evidence of this destruction is witnessed almost daily by millions from all over the geographic world one could logically believe that these Islamic terrorist are as declared. Their past behavior and present declarations are the best measure of their very serious threats; one can see the results of their destructive disregard in the pursuance of their bloody agenda; their intentions and evil designs are an affront to common sensibility and represent the descriptive of despicable evil. As a consequence of their ruthless, bloody uncompromising determination; many people are fully prepared to endure the time, spend the money, and dedicate the resources to physically eliminate the operational means of these Islamic terrorist and their host supporters.

On the other hand, Liberal Democrats have ignored all but one terrorist; they have elect Osama Bin Laden as their target of war-like pretensions; if Osama could be brought to justice then all the mayhem would disappear or at the very worst case, within the vague void of details that represents the Democratic military strategy; he would be contained.

This declaration of war against OBL is a ruse, a slight of hand, a down right contemptuous method of disguising their true intentions; which are to their charade marshal interest to cover their peace at any cost inclinations while at the same time pointing to Iraq as another fault of the Republican administration in general and George Bush specifically. If the Democrats had the fortitude of moral conviction they would assemble and simply vote not to fund the military and the war in Iraq; in short order the troops would leave Iraq and the war of American engagement would be over. The truth is the Democrats would rather have the war as a contentious issue for the 08 election; ending the war now is not their objective. Winning the general election of 2008 is their goal.

In an article written by Michael Barone U.S. News & World Report, it is reported that the Democrats don’t seem much interested in what’s really happening in Iraq as reported by Gen. David Petraeus. They do in fact, seem to be acting like they want to end the war and at the same time dare not be seen as NOT funding the war.  


Respective of all other national issues the only goal of the Democratic Party is to win the next election. They are Machiavellian disciples bent on winning the White House no matter the cost to national interest and concerns or American deaths.  


When Islamic militants murderously threaten certain peoples of the world with death and destruction; when these threats are acted upon: Buildings destroyed, planes exploded, people killed, kidnapped, tortured, ambushed, and otherwise horrifically harmed; in this era of nuclear, biological, and bacteriological warfare, it is time for the people threatened to act offensively and physically rid the world of such a portentous element.  

But herein is the problem: The Democrats are lobbied effectively by the persuasion of left leaning idealist, peace at all cost fanatics, social utopians, labor with cross purpose motivations and the abruptly naive who live as if in a Pepsi Cola commercial populated and managed by wide eyed minimalist who will always prefer to criticize than solve, point the finger of accusation than recommend solutions, these minimalist believe in the short cut to resolution which is simply to give the demanders their demands. Their credo of willful foreign policy design is to sincerely dialogue with the opposition to American interest; they believe that conversation will prompt understanding and empathy which in turn will rationalize contesting issues into a finality of compromising but mutual benefit.  

Democrats are intrinsically in their heart-of-hearts cowardly pretenders; purple clothed hypocrites, wolves in the house of the common draped as in the interest of the poor, white knights of the downtrodden middle class, defenders of righteousness for the sake of what is right, all the while, they are in large measure millionaires, members of exclusive private clubs, and residents of exclusive neighborhoods; the contradiction to their political pretensions are obvious and plain.

 One surely must recognize that these Democrats are ducks…

Persuasion, Deceit, Transparency, Guile, and Net Result

Is it really true that media’s influence on the common listener or viewer has a pronounced and measurable effect; an effect so definitive that general elections and special issue ballot results (by professional harbingers) are routinely predetermined? Is the common seduced into voting submission by political slogans, memorable phrases and rhymes? Is the politician’s prose so melodiously persuasive to actually prompt voting obedience?

As for opposing perspectives, are the common listeners and viewers open to meaningful contemplation of differing of counter arguments? Is there truly a measurable contest (within the mind of the voter) of competing political ideals or is the voter’s predetermination or existing mindset the winning elixir?


Does the media by the purposeful manipulating/editing and careful presentation of news information willfully emphasis a particular political agenda that is in keeping with the prevailing political ethos? Can this manipulation of news by media actually change a predetermined political mindset? Or, as a coincidence of unconscious prejudicial preference, do the media and the listener/viewer simply reinforce the established politically mores of the individual? Is the inductively induced bias of established predetermination so overwhelming a force that new facts to the contrary will not cause a differing result? Or is this public display by the common listener/viewer of concern of and for the truth nothing but a ruse. Perhaps it is simply that truth is not and has never been the objective of the media or its audience? Possible, competitive media have divergent views, these views are inherent within the competing media community: therefore, management controls the political slant or opinion.

Does loyalty to a conviction once held best the rational process of utilizing principals of good sense that might lead one to a heretofore differing conclusion? Does the inductive triumph over the deductive? Will Senator Ted Kennedy ever support a conservative principle? Could President Bush ever support the federal funding of stem cell research?

As with this writing, questions naturally precede answers; answers, to some exacting extent, depend on the wording of the question; plus, all answers have a limited shelf life and must configure to changing terrain and situation. History declares flux as the momentum of the constant; today’s blue is tomorrow’s yellow; in politics, war, social pursuance, as well as, all human endeavors ‘change’ is the reputable constant. There is a rule of law that states unequivocally: One citizen represents one vote and that rule of law is considered a definitive of democracy. Therefore, those who wish to be elected to a political office must positively influence those who possess a vote. It matters least that the influence is beguiling, a distortion of fact or a blatant untruth or that the possessor of the vote is ignorant, stupid, or finds the context of voting particulars perplexingly incomprehensible. Undeniably, the objective of the ‘to be elected’ is to be elected; as long as the action taken to be elected is within reasonable adherence to civility all pre-election shenanigans are for the most part accepted.