The Challenge For America

Authored by William Robert Barber

I have three fundamental guidelines for measuring America’s security:

(1) The recognition that America’s super power strategy is lethal as long as America maintains its worldwide distribution of military forces.

(2) The executive branch of America’s leadership must not allow the concept of unlimited – toothless – diplomacy to supersede its willingness to exercise military might.

(3) America does not unilaterally disarm. My definition of unilateral disarmament is exampled by spending less on defense instead of more; additionally, and just as important, is the budgeting for future weaponry. Such would include missile defense inclusive of acknowledging at the highest level of the federal government the necessary constancy of advancing of armaments in the air, on land, and sea. A strong combat-experienced armed force is the first line of an insuperable defense. From a domestic prospective the American military is the precursor guarantor of our nation’s education, health, and welfare, or any other concerns of domestic importance.

I believe that America with its democratic allies/affiliates is the only democratically inspired force of arms left standing. Only America has the resource to counter the ever present threats of terrorism, as well as subjugating or thwarting the plots and actions of international criminal enterprises. But most importantly, the super-power utility of American leadership represents dire martial consequences to any nation or rogue sponsored enemy that contemplates an overt military act upon any of the democratic republics or their collective interest.

Respective of America’s capacity to deliver dire martial consequences, if the president is unwilling to act convincingly to guarantee and protect America’s interest, American power is negated and mute. I do fear this Obama degreed period of liberal enlightenment that seemingly embodies a passionate policy to error on the side of empathic wistfulness. In my opinion, Obama resides in a world as he wishes it to be rather than the world as it really is. These are dangerous times… The Obama persuasion is not a lethal weapon. The North Koreans, Iranians, Syrians, and the terrorist they blatantly sponsor are not impressed by our president’s rhetorical magic. Instead, they are impressed and prodded, singularly, by the lethal use of power.

As far as I recall, before the first spear was sharpened and eventually fitted with a tipped instrument, man has plotted, planned, and with intense contrivance configured the various methods and means of gaining superiority over rivals. Today the means and methods have changed, but not the strategic reasoning nor the original motivation. Dominance of one nation over another, as historically documented, is fleeting. For one reason or another, throughout time, the most powerful have evolved into the less than the most powerful. From the greatest of Egypt’s pharaohs to the numerous, once all-powerful peoples that settled within the Tigris-Euphrates Valley of Abraham’s time to Victoria’s England, categorically the strongest, most glorious of nations have been destroyed, the fearful belittled to helplessness, and the free enslaved.

America cannot allow itself to fail…America must remain virile and committed to maintaining an international all-powerful role. The martial principle of “all-powerful superiority” as the ultimate of foreign policy strategies are in fact the only reliable option.

Across The Drawbridge And Over The Moat

Authored by William Robert Barber

Within the confines of academia, a laboratory, or in a self-created stage wherein one is the writer, producer, and director, a political ideologue, for purposes of controlled delusion, could – with fashionable flair – create a solution for any problem. However, when the confines are discarded and, one venture beyond the moat and into the hinterland, the effect of controlled delusion gives way to the often non-moral, customarily unforeseeable, usually apathetic reality of dealing with the ever changing constancy of terrain and situation.

Once President Obama (the ever onstage campaigner) passes over the moat he can no longer pretty-speech his way through dealing with the harshness of serious issues and problems. Events and the circumstances of such events force one away from the TelePrompTer and into the real world of contesting, wherein the only outcome is victory or death. Obama faces many problems; of course, he believes they were all brought about by that nasty Bush administration – regardless – someday this president must stand and take responsibility for his own self-creating issues and problems.

The closing of Guantanamo is just one such problem; there are many more. Sometime soon the music will stop and the dancing will end and our president, along with his cadre of helpers, must finally find a chair and make a real-world decision on Guantanamo.

I do find the underlying philosophy of the Obama liberals interestingly delusional; they speak of an America of vintage moral standards – moral standard – that I am totally unfamiliar with. I really do not know where to start but is it not true that we Americans decimated the Indian indigenous to this land before our concept of Manifest Destiny became fact? Did we not purchase the Louisiana territory from France, as well as Alaska from Russia, before congress voted to do so? Did we not take Texas, California, and New Mexico and invaded Mexico under the most egregious of causes? Did this country not illegally lock up and confiscate the assets of Japanese Americans during WWII? Did we not fire-bomb Dresden and drop the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities, overtly killing thousands of innocent civilians? Of course I could go on… but I do wonder where Obama and company finds this moral standard exceptional of America — must be from a comic book.

As to America’s historical behavior — all the world’s historical reference, regardless of country, will document the unspeakable violent actions of humankind’s struggle with their own. In my assessment of America’s history, I conclude that moral standards are a nicety, a nicety that lags behind the one all-important-tangible. A tangible that is an a priori to America’s survival – that irreplaceable tangible being power. America must be and forever maintain a status of the most powerful nation on earth. From such power-moral standards, the Obama interruption of moral authority is allowed to exist.

When Obama and his leftist liberal minions speak of America’s moral authority and that such authority is the strongest of America’s currency – in the world, no less – I do wonder what planet these Obama minions live on. Certainly, it cannot be earth!

The evidence of their reasoning is registered in such declarations as: To paraphrase, enhanced interrogations not only do not work; such undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world and serve as a recruiting tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with us. Does any person charged with the obligation of and to reasonable deduction actually believe that liberal leftist inspired stream of rhetorical nonsense?

I would ask Obama and his minions to render the empirical-plain-fact-evidence of these declarations. Does any one American, charged with the protection of his or her fellow citizens, actually believe that it is better to suffer the loss of thousands of American lives instead of attempting enhanced interrogation to solicit, cajole or (by any means) force a terrorist to spew out where the nuclear, biological, or radiological bomb has been placed? What moral standard does Obama cling to when, because water boarding or any and all means was not tried, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been killed?

The Obama disciples believe that reason and persuasion will eventually change a terrorist from acting like a terrorist; after all, America will apologize, they will understand the righteousness of our ‘change of conviction’, and stop slitting throats, killing innocents in market squares, planting bombs, and hatching plots against general populations, even if the population is of their own faith or tradition. This change of behavior will become a reality as soon as Pelosi becomes a Republican and hell freezes over.

The Obama society of contrarian silliness cannot (maybe do not want to) even stop the criminal breaches of Acorn, much less the actions of a determined terrorist. Obama has left his classroom and crossed over the moat — and reality is a bitch.

“I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman.”

Authored by William Robert Barber

Nancy Pelosi has overtly lied to the American people. She said she was not briefed by the CIA as to the “water boarding” of terrorists when indeed she was. The lie is not reconcilable; Pelosi lied and she has nowhere to hide.

But then, the Democrats are in power; therefore, she will “skate”. Pelosi is the perfect example of the electorate’s toleration of outright dishonesty as long as it is derived from a liberal politician.

Power is a corruptive. The natural and singular sway of political power is inevitably directed to the only result possible — corruption. Power is the black hole of politics. The very act of politicking is a presentation by means less than truthful or not so obviously false. A good politician, in our political culture, is one who manages to achieve stated objectives while acting to do so within statutory rules and regulations.

For politicians, ethics as understood and taught within institutions, as well as even the pretense of socially accepted standards of morality, are blasé. The tenets of a politician’s contextual are littered with lying (as long as such lying is not under oath), statements of exaggeration or disinformation (as long as the contrary is not voice or video recorded), scurrilous accusations, negative innuendos, and outright ruthless behavior which fits perfectly within the electorates acceptance of a politician’s prerogative.

Politicians have the aid and assist of their staff of attorneys and well-placed individuals to either cover up their corruptive actions or redirect attention away from such actions. Of course the complicity required for a politician to get away with all of the nonsense is an excellent instance of how power is so corruptive, it infects the politician’s family, friends, staff, and even the media.

Why we citizens accept such unethical, immoral, and unjust behavior is beyond my comprehension. Maybe we have grown accustomed to the cabal of elected officials as the unavoidable status quo, and that striving for a difference is beyond our reach?

The Speaker of the House lied; blatantly and forth rightfully she lied to the American people. Now — what are we going to do about it?

Some Topics of Interest

Authored by William Robert Barber

Term Limits: One’s political influence hence one’s pecking order within the party, be it Republican or Democratic, is measured by one’s ability to raise cash; in other words, for the elected or the wannabe elected cash is the only true determinant of one’s influence. The election metric is a compilation of the total monies contributed to the candidate’s campaign, which will determine the number of votes cast in the candidate’s favor. The elected must regularly compete; winning the election is more often than not, directly proportional to the amount of funds held and spent; therefore raising cash is the real job description of any and all politicians. This has been the scenario since elections came into being — no getting around this reality.

There is an unequivocal, historically evidenced fact that the length of time in elective office coupled with the inherent power intrinsic to congress’ seniority system is in itself the instrument of corruption. Additionally, the effect of time in service and millions, if not billions of cash, accompanied with the right to tax and disburse, registered in the hands of politicians who have served more than two terms in office, will in the finality, with no exception, result in corruption.

Peace with Israel’s enemies: War is the constant behavior of humankind. The differing between the dictionary’s definitions of peace is in reality or empirically nothing other than a lesser degree of warfare.  Reasoning, rationality, fairness, moral/ethical mores, the rule of law: descriptors of the world as we wish it to be; certainly this is not the world as it truly is. Let’s be clear, Israel’s enemies’ only singular interest is the total and forevermore destruction of Israel’s institutions, property, and people. Additionally, the destruction of Israel is not in the strategic national interest of the United States.

Congressional Oversight: Once again — the never-ending episode — congress is holding hearings so to consider the implementation of more rules and regulations. The premise is that there is never enough watchdogging of those bad guys in private enterprise. I would love to view congress investigating itself — oh, of course, they are above the law, even above the law of sensibility. Simply by listening to the questions posed upon the advisors at these hearings one can determine the ideological leaning of the questioner. For the questioners it all breaks down to playing out their political fidelity and ideological leaning to the cameras, hence the public.

Government is growing in power as well as complexity. Today, the action of governing is so ambiguous and nuanced that transparency is impossible. The efforts of the left hand of government are undone by the right and vice-versa; the federal government is trying — and effectively trying — to suppress the heretofore rights of the states.

California is now in the numbers racket and soon to be in the online drug and gambling business; all of this enterprising being a state monopoly. All of this investing of taxpayer monies is dedicated to the enhancing of government power, and I think proportionally the loss of individual freedom.

It’s Always About The Money


Authored by William Robert Barber

It is now and has always been about the money. The entity that collects and distributes the cash is the a priori definitive of “that which governs”.   Taxation is the conduct the utility of means wherein the state extracts cash from its people. One part of this power is taking the cash, the other side is distributing it. The combination establishes the government’s weapon of absolute power; obviously, therefore, the more taxes extracted, the more influence peddled by the state.

Since the beginning of the republic the central government, as a manner of course, has extended its reach into the pockets of one to give to another; the power to take and give is the definitive descriptive of governmental power. 

WWI was the convenience for the first global crisis and as a result congress enacted the individual income tax; WWII was a crisis of unimaginable possibilities and the prospect of irreparable consequences if the nation was defeated. Tax rates on individuals exploded upwards and everyone paid without a murmur of disagreement. The war ended and the tax rate abated only slightly – government had grown and it was in no mood to retrograde to its prewar status. Big government was here to stay.

Our country’s personal or individual income tax system is founded on a principle of progressive taxation; generally, the more money one makes the more one pays in taxes and inversely so.  But there is a downside guarantee for citizens making less than a certain amount; these citizens pay no federal and where applicable no state income taxes; these persons, numbering in the multi-millions have no stake in the tax system. Therefore, these many millions are apathetic, uninvolved, and completely disinterested in the tenants or tax obligations of the actual taxpayers.

In this land of the free we cherish the dictum of one person, one vote; we adhere to this law of the land regardless of gender, economic class, privilege, educated or not, sane or insane, knowledgeable or ignorant, whether English is understood or not. The law is very clear: if one is of age and a citizen of this nation, one possesses one vote.

Now if you are a politician, a politician whose interest is the retention or attainment of elected office (my assumption being that covers all politicians), would not this politician buy votes with promises? A promising one could be: “Ninety-five percent of the American people will receive a tax break.” Would such a promise be considered buying of votes? And is it not the case that buying votes is illegal?

Along with buying votes with the taxpayers’ money, politicians lie. Campaign promises are considered for the most part only for the duration of the campaign. I think politicians get away with their constancy of lying because the overwhelming percentage of  people pays little or no taxes. They feel they have nothing in the game. They’re dead wrong of course but because our tax system excludes them, they remain apathetic and uninvolved.

The concept of progressive taxation taxes one more than the other and millions of “the other” pay no taxes at all. The effect is a general disregard from the untaxed and aggravation from the taxed. If “fair” is the reasoning of the individual income tax code, how could not taxing many and taxing the less (than the many) be fair?

I think it is about one man, one vote; it certainly could not be the fairness of tax policy. The Democrats have figured out the formula for electoral success is to purchase the votes with other people’s money. This is not a new strategy nor is it a practical policy; but it sure sounds good to the receiver of other people’s money.