Authored by William Robert Barber.

In the interest of winning the next sound bite, which of course ties directly into winning the next election, the Obama majority – embodied as the 111th congress – is very busy seeking out the wherewithal of a number of domestic issues; but not just any assortment of issues. The issue(s) eventually chosen will have requirements; for example, the issue(s) will need to link harmoniously into more democratic votes; plus, the issue(s) must be malleable enough to be sculptured or molded into a variety of possible interpretations. Variable interpretations of the issue(s) are an intrinsic composite of Obama’s skillfully deceitful speechmaking.

As a consequence, researching for the pretext of an issue is not a simple task; indeed, finding the right issue is a challenge requiring considerable cognitive effort. Congresspersons and staff  are day-in-day-out intensely engaged in the artfulness of finding issues that meet such stringent criteria. One must never forget that issues are symbiotic with fund raising and fund raising is the business real of the elected. These persons of the elected class are issue-fastidious; but only if the issue has collatera tie-in application to their retention of power or political ideology.

The Obama Democrats have decided that TARP, along with the nonsense of a number of economic stimulus bills, has set the standard and opened the floodgates for deficit financing. Congress, along with the blessings of two differing political administrations, has taken billions of taxpayer funds and thrown it down the drain; therefore, the democrats believe that funding leftist-liberal policy, contextualized in the form of issues, should not be a problem.

Issues need either glitter or covert maneuvering; politicians prefer the pretext of an issue wrapped with layers of ambiguity or, even better, a pretext that prompts confusing befuddlement; all of this strenuous contemplation (by congress) is designed to facilitate an illusion of enviable importance — an illusion that is fundamental to the plausibility of governing effectiveness.

Regretfully, these issues must first run the gauntlet of ideological compliance before persuasion is applied to enact consensus. It seems, withstanding pressing problems that beg for solutions, the present administration mimics the historical precedence wherein legislation really is about either power or the retention or attainment thereof. Imagine the totality of this strenuous contemplation (by congress) is designed to enable the means to super-empower the already omnipotent federal government. 

According to the liberal-leftist Democrats, America is a country with huge domestic problems. Whole classes and sectors of Americans have been neglected, even abused; for example: The poor, the generally disadvantaged, the middle class, the unions, the environmentalists, Al Gore’s predilection, conservationists, ACORN, the disenfranchised (whoever they might be)… The aggregate of these huge domestic problems will be solved by establishing a national health care plan, taxing those who have more money, and the implementation of redistribution to those Americans that make less money.

As a consequence, congress is going to address these problems with plus-point solutions; naturally, in order to facilitate these solutions, the liberal-democratic controlled government requires funds and the power to implement.

To be clear, government has found several very serious domestic issues that the political majority is hellbent on forming into a problem so that they may find a solution.

The factual problem at hand is the outrageous cost of governing, the wholly unfair federal tax system, the continuum of disingenuous litigation, the selective enforcement of immigration laws, the operating cost of social security, Medicare, all entitlements, the looming cost of retirement benefits of federal employees, underfunded by millions of state pensions, and the inherently blatant corruption of our ever growing bureaucracy. I could go on…but I understand that the House of Representatives has just sent a Cap & Trade Bill – unread by the congresspersons – for the Senate to approve.


Authored by William Robert Barber

It has been pronounced by those who know all things that the electorate receives the government it deserves; it therefore rationally follows that a democratically elected government’s ethical practice is derived from the ethical and moral mores of its citizenry. Or is it the other way around? Does the government by its sheer size and power influence and therefore to some measurable degree set the standard on acceptable ethical-moral mores? As an example, certain state governments have a monopoly in the numbers racket; some states, and certainly the gargantuan federal government, have positioned themselves to directly benefit from taxes and licensing fees on gambling, cigarettes, and liquors.

To paraphrase, President Lincoln once said that he hoped a government of, by, and for the people would not perish from this earth. He then went on to enact numerous violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the name of safeguarding the country. Of course the country was in the midst of a civil war, the nation’s survival was in jeopardy, and hundreds of thousands of Americans were losing life or limb. In other words, the nation was in crisis.

It has been proclaimed, by varying timbre, that President Obama is managing the affairs of state within the throes of a crisis; certainly, his crisis is different than Lincoln’s. Nevertheless, as expressed by Obama, the present day crisis is as serious as the ‘Great Depression’; therefore, speedy desperate measures are needed to stem, contain, and abridge the typhoon-like financial disaster. I believe that Obama has taken full advantage of the situation to promote his political or personal agenda.

Whether it is the war on drugs, laws to counter discrimination, the eradication of poverty, the government’s hypocrisy regarding the ill effects of smoking (while benefiting from the taxation of such drugs for the last century), the minimum tax initiative, or almost any other governmental action designed ostensibly to improve the public welfare and the common good — the effect has unintended consequences. These consequences almost always cost the taxpayer a fortune and bit by bit abate individual rights and freedoms.

As I have alsways stated, the very fact of governing by any government enables corruptive behavior. It matters not if the government structure is a democratic-republic, monarchy, totalitarian, or parliamentarian; the elected, appointed, and employed (staff/bureaucracy) of those engaged in governing will, inevitably, by some degree, betray the trust and fiduciary obligatory of those they represent.

During my time as a consultant to the government of Panama that experience verified that overt pervasive corruption is not economically viable; often, the viability of corruptive practices are not economically viable even for the perpetrators. Nevertheless, government corruption, like a cold virus, is not curable and highly contagious.

No one should be surprised of governmental corruption; after all, the affairs of governing are managed by human beings, not plants or software programs. I believe that no government can govern free of corruption; indeed, the validation of a government’s rightfulness is in part measured by the limit or smallness of its corruption.

Such therefore begs the question: Why, if government is inherently corrupt, do the people trust government institutions? Why do we trust the words or workings of politicians? Regardless of political party or a politician’s ideological affiliation, why, in the name of sensibility, do we entrust and subordinate so blindly to governmental actions?

But no one is concerned. Voting only seems to change the party affiliation, not the practice of stupid or the continuum of corruptive behavior.

It seems the populous only responds to crisis. For example, as never seen before, Pearl Harbor put the nation on a footing of collective resolve. The government was trusted. Of course once trust had been established, taxes were continuously raised and individual rights/freedoms subsided and the populous could never again find the pea under the right shell.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama liberals, much like the average Democratic Party politician, only more so, have a legislative and extra-legislative agenda to implement and they intend on on doing so with or without congressional approval. According to Obama, one has the right to object, but not the right to express that objection in a manner that could or would cause a differing of outcome, forecast, or policy. In other words, if one has an objection, a concern, or an amendment, such is fine with Obama as long as it does not interfere with his legislation. It scarcely matters that congressional oversight and rightful engagement is circumvented; nor does Obama hesitate, even if he is operating without lawful precedence, to seize effectual actions utilizing billions of taxpayers’ monies to bail out GM & Chrysler; what is important for Obama is the implementation of his agenda, not the procedure.

Obama seems to be wholly prompted by ideological beliefs; these ideological beliefs have nothing necessarily in common with the practical or good sense aspects of actual realization, and everything to do with zealot-like adherents to his particular belief. As with declaring the closing of Guantanamo before he had a plan and the rhetorical hype of healthcare for every American, as well as, by the way, every illegal immigrant. True to form he is declaring the righteousness of universal healthcare before a plan is written. Of course he understands that once the plan is written it will be scrutinized and measured; such audit-travailing does not sit well with the Obama liberals; after all, they really do know what is best.

Obama has nominated 16 czars to oversee his policy because his cabinet is overwhelmed and simply cannot get around to these critical issues. Issues like blessing up or down executive pay; Obama has no interest in controlling the car manufactureres or managing the inner workings of banks and insurance companies; but, of course that is exactly what they are doing. Obama is actually saying, “Do you want to believe me or your lying eyes.”

I am quite amazed at the continuum of media silliness that Obama’s policy initiates; the interface of reporting amongst competing television news networks and newspapers registers enlightenment, entertainment, and a solid measure of raging frustration. The media, regardless of any political affiliation by pundit or producer, are all eager (or should I say desperately eager) to endorse, discredit, modify, simply curse, or with gleeful panegyric regard reference Obama as the way and light.

Obama is a deceitful politician. Yes, I understand that lots of politicians are deceitful, but not many are as devious as President Obama. Not many can act in the red column but really be in the black column, all the while create the illusion, in the name of transparency, that he is truly blue.

Take his most recent speech on the pay-go program wherein he definitively stated that congress should not create programs that are not paid for by explicit means. All the while he excludes many of his own program initiatives from the very pay-go criteria he is advising congress on. Now this is a perfect instance of the Obama exercise of his belief system; say whatever one needs to say to achieve the objective. Obama is an amorally driven politician that justifies his means by his ends. He is driven by his socialistically inspired belief that fair and equal supersedes individual rights and individual freedom; of course, fair and equal is allotted and established by Obama.

For the most part Obama has won the battle of popularity; he has had his way, and his cunning political tactics have secured his legacy as a shrewd man who happens to be a politician. I do believe that proportionate to Obama’s success is reflective in America’s detriment. America has squandered billions and is heading at the speed of eloquent speeches for the largest, greatest, configuration of mostly negative economic, statutory, and cultural change since the election of FDR.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Conflict is a steadfast behavioral intrinsic of humankind. The understanding and acceptance of that reality is an essential precursor in the drafting of any foreign policy or diplomatic overture. This nation’s foreign engagements must be enacted with the unhindered eyesight of a realist that sees the world as it is; not as if an idealist, a dreamer, or a Pollyanna might wish it to be. Peace has proven to be an illusion. Indeed, if peace was stated as the goal of this nation’s policy, instead of initiating peacefulness, one encourages hostility. The very concept of creating peace requires the proponent of such a policy to lay down the sword and shield; the requirement of peace as a policy goal inherently requires the acceptance of vulnerability and trust. Such a positioning for America is an exercise in self-destruction, as well as entertaining the populous with the dangerous mirage of hopefulness instead of coping with reality.

What is critical for America as to its engagement in any armed conflict is winning. America must remain committed to the unmitigated goal of absolute unadulterated victory. Anything less than victory once engaged prompts eventual re-engagement or worse; a perfect example is the present no-win scenario with North Korea.

In 1950 the United States lead United Nations force into Korea to defend South Korea from the invasion of its Northern brethren. Notice, I said defend instead of offensively invading North Korea. The United States decided to push the bully back instead of smashing him over the head with a two-by-four. This tit for tat / paddy cake approach to ruthless aggression cost thousands of deaths. The tri-party nations of China, Russia, and North Korea united to invade South Korea; the surprise attack swept through all opposition; imagine, just five years after the end of WWII, war had raised its ugly head once again.

The fighting was horrific and damning; dead and wounded were numerous. But, as usual it was the common people who suffered the most. As the war took form, no end to the fighting seemed in sight. The United States lost its interest and elected a president who pledged to end the war. This president did not pledge victory; he pledged that the conflict would end. True to his word the conflict did indeed end. It ended with North Korea intact. We know that not conquering North Korea was a monolithic strategic mistake. The result of our willingness to accept less than victory was the catalyst for a continuance of counter-party belligerence; as a nation we lost sight of the opportunity to really end the war and we have been paying that price in gold and blood ever since.

There should not be a nuclear armed North Korea but because of our indulgence in seeing the world as we wish it to be congress and the executive office checked into Disneyland; an armistice was agreed upon at the price of victory and now North Korea threatens America and its interest with nuclear destruction.

It is said by those who seem to know all things that regarding North Korea there are no good options. Is Iran next? Will America ever accept its role as the leader of the free world? America and its allies are the only guarantor of democratic principles, unobstructed international trade, and many freedoms we hold common. America is the armed counter to the potential of Russian or Chinese aggression.

There is a nuclear armed madman running a country…and America allowed it to happen.

So Far The Liberals Have Won

Authored by William Robert Barber

The conservatives are losing the contest for the hearts and minds of America’s identity. Americans have had a tradition, at least until the reign of Obama, as insisting on a relatively conservative governing philosophy; today, this tradition has shifted in favor of a governing philosophy more to the political left then the once right-center. Of course this movement to the left was prompted by some sugar. The liberal socialists have developed a policy of buying votes by offering those who presently pay no or very little personal income tax a bargain. If you vote for Obama and his democrats we will send you money.

I believe the Democratic Party has demonstrated a reliable solidarity of purpose and focus; their legislative victories are a pure definition of how-to management of political doctrine, control of media, and knowing how to benefit the most from the magic of Obama’s speeches, laden with vague references to a promising contextual of misinformation-disinformation. I have not witnessed such wide-eyed seduction by so many since Burt Lancaster’s portrayal as the Evangelist Gantry.

Leadership is a matter of persuasion; the measure of a persuader’s effectiveness is ultimately about the establishment of meaningful consensus. While the persuader is persuading – the consensus unrealized – the effectiveness is therefore measured by time elapsed. When a policy is presented and enacted quickly, the persuasion is cast as sound dynamic leadership. The contrary is also just as true. The stretching of time will defeat the effectiveness of any persuader’s argument; the measure of a leader’s power is for the most part measured by the time it takes for a persuader’s policy to gain positive consensus.

Thus far, the liberal democrats have demonstrated on more than one occasion that they are leading the congress; while the people, in the majority, are standing in support of the Democrats: Obama’s “Yes we can” brand of governing.

The loyal opposition in congress cannot seem to enjoin, establish, and implement a substantive alternate to the democrats’ policy continuance of liberal socialism. At least the Republicans cannot effectively voice their policy alternative in a manner that enables a sustained outcry of effective counter persuasion. They just do not have the wherewithal to fight fire with fire; hence, the needed phalanx to march up the Democrats’ front all the while surprising them with an attack from the flank and rear is beyond their tactical ability. For the Democrats, dealing with the Republican resistance to their policies is like shooting ducklings that have not learned to fly.