Authored by William Robert Barber

Geithner, Holder, Clinton, and the man in the White House have bridged the distance from election promises to ongoing policies.  For these servants of the people, Obama policy is no longer the simple consideration of a campaign promise.  Time on the job has eclipsed these wannabe elected politicians into the measurable.  The liberal-progressives won the election; as a consequence, they have enacted a number of distinctively marked ‘result of Obama’ principles of action.  They have been in office the better part of a year — the time has come to consider their effects and results.

On foreign policy, better described as the Obama-Clinton diplomacy of hopefulness, the great persuader and his trusty Secretary of State are deeply committed to a foreign policy of national humility.  By incorporating the craftiness of first publicly apologizing for the Bush era specifically, but also for America’s unilateral behavior in general, this Obama-Clinton approach to interfacing with the international community is followed up with attentive listening and deep solemn contemplating.

How is this strategy working for the administration?

China will not devalue its currency or meaningfully participate in denying Iran the utility of its resources.   The former Red Menace will not discourage North Korean hostilities in favor of US policy.  Instead, President Hu Jintao warns Mr. Obama of the obvious:  Rising deficit, the negative effect of a devalued dollar, while complaining of a 20% decrease in his country’s export.

As Russia is pursuing its interest, which includes contracting with Iran so to harness and control the natural gas market for export to Western Europe, Obama is sidelining Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia, the former colonies of the Mother Russia.  Russia understands the Obama weakness, knowing he will never apply unrestrained American power.  As evidence, this American president — while in a time of war — stated that he is not interested in victory.

North Korea is a wild card.  At the very worst, North Korea could, for reasons unreasonable, fire that nuclear armed missile.  The only nation with the military might to deter such an act is the United States; but they too, understand that Obama will hesitate.  North Korea is a gangster nation.

The far left of the liberal progressive Democratic Party is weary of tolerating a continuance of the Afghanistan war and rue the ploy of the good war in order to defeat Bush’s Iraq war.  They want the force of arms harnessed and the expending of treasure to cease.  After all, they have other places to spend those billions of dollars.

Inclusive of the rudiments of his foreign policy, Obama seems to conceptualize that the solution to America’s international concerns resides in reorganizing the country’s domestic issues.  If his administration could just, by what ever means, spread the wealth, socialize the economy, enable green energy, revive unions, legalize the illegal immigrants, and nationalize healthcare, all the nations of the world would offer their friendship and cooperation.   I do believe that after the dust of this liberal-progressive socialist administration settles, when blaming Bush will no longer suffice, when the Republicans, Tea Baggers, independent voters, and capitalistic profiteers have had enough of the Democrats libelous innuendos, I do believe one will discover — because the media elite will never concede such a factual — that the Obama-Clinton foreign policy is indefinable because it is functionally indiscernible.

Though one may try, the reality is that one cannot understand the material thesis or the logic of the Obama Doctrine.  Where is the logic?  What is the motivational goal of those policy makers?  Do the creators of Obama-Clinton foreign policy have an end game?  Or is it that the end game is so sophisticated, so enriched by cerebral magnification that the only answer for the unwashed non-Harvard schooled is to have the faith of Saint Paul and simply believe in President Obama?

When will American patience end? How much longer are we going to accept, even begrudgingly, this administration’s constancy of real world naiveté?  Obama’s foreign policy is nothing less than a proliferating variety of runic distortions and needlessly opaque affirmations that lack any basis of practical relevance.

The president and his ideologues live in a world apart, an alternate state of wish-it-was-so.  This Obama belief-theme, coupled with Fabian Society objectives, is regretfully not an academic exercise in possibilities.  This is a policy, vigorously applied and wantonly designed to effectively abate US power and prestige; it will result in this nation’s eventual loss of sovereignty.  The Obama-Clinton duo does not live in the empirical factual.  Indeed, they prefer the mystical sublime of the mythological; their ideal is a synthesis of reality.  Mr. O. and Mrs. C. have created a play-pretend of a world; a place where nation states can debate, a place of neverland where the merits of humanism, kindness, love,  and mutual respect override all instincts to the contrary.  A place like the United Nations befits their ideal.  Of course the United Nations is not such a place — but these two would never permit facts to reset their ideological absolutes.

If foreign policy issues should not be enough of a cause for the Obama administration: Unemployment is soaring, the Obama solution is to have a summit.  This is madness.  Well, actually madness is allowing terrorists, the very same fellows that masterminded the killing of thousands of Americans, the very same constitutional rights as those of the people they killed.  That sort of madness, perpetrated by a clueless politician masquerading as this nation’s chief law enforcement officer, does directly endanger the citizens of New York City and the nation.  And then there is Geithner…


Authored by William Robert Barber

I am 65 years of age; old enough to have fought in the Vietnam War. If I was 85 years old, I could have fought in WWI; if 76, I could have participated in the Korean Conflict. If 99 years of age, WWI and if just a little older, the Spanish-American War. Sadly, the children of those that fought in Vietnam are now killing, dying, maiming, and being maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since its inception, America has engaged in a number of benchmark hostilities; these events coupled set the standard of this nation’s history. Withstanding America’s long and consistent narrative of warlike behavior, it would be wrongheaded to suggest that successive administrations, from different political affiliations that extend as far back as the Spanish-American War, was all war-mongering Philistines, indifferent to utilizing peaceful means to settle conflicting interest.

Instead, I think the world is, has been, and more than likely will always be, a hostile environment. I also believe that peace as commonly defined is a delusion. Factually, peace has not ever existed and does not now exist. To push the denial just a bit further, I do believe that peace, as popularly defined, is unattainable. If one agrees with these hypotheses, then it follows that a foreign policy designed to establish or attain peace is an illusionary goal, unworthy of effort.

Our current policy is immersed in issues of lethal proportion. I deduce that there has never been a more dangerous time for America. Religious zealots of Muslim origin have submitted to a doctrine of holy war against the West and specifically against the Anglo Christian peoples of the world. It is their intent to destroy the Judeo-Christian alliance by either converting or killing them.

This nation has many enemies which would include North Korea, Iran, Syria, and their martial compatriots. These are the very same provocateurs of terrorism that pledge destruction while complimenting such pledges with exemplifying horrific behavior. To negotiate with those that espouses destruction as a means to their end is not only a waste of effort but takes the nation off focus. Just because our state department creates an unsubstantiated assumption that such negotiations are in the interest of peacefulness, does not mean that in real terms such actions will transmute a negative into a positive. Such head-in-the-sand approach to reality is only an acknowledgement of wishful diplomacy which will never substitute artful statecraft.

Our present action and counter-action will not settle our disagreements; at best our efforts only prolong the inevitable. At worst, putting off the inevitable (war) only strengthens the counter parties’ military might and enforces the counter parties’ belief that as part of their diplomatic efforts, America will not utilize military might to achieve a goal. Clearly, the Obama administration will not go to war to preserve or protect America’s interest. As a consequence, any and all efforts are not sufficient of a deterrent to counter North Korea, Iran, or Syria’s intent on executing war-like measures detrimental to this nation’s interest.

The Obama administration did not set a precedent; even Bush would not commit American might as it should have been deployed. America somehow has taken on the presumption that the exercise of power is inherently a limited act. How absolutely absurd; but is that not our policy?

At a minimum, at least since the ending portion of WWII, our administrations, in unison with congress, have tasked our armed forces with missions that they deem necessary while hampering our forces’ ability to wage war.

For example, Eisenhower’s decision to allow the Russians to take Berlin; Roosevelt and Truman’s ineptness at understanding Russian intentions while dealing directly with a brutal dictator — the very same person that signed a treaty with Hitler and participated in the invasion of Poland; Stalin was a rat and still, these two presidents looked away from the obvious. Imagine, America had the strongest navy and army in the world, logistically in place, with the atomic bomb — and within five years after the end of WWII, freedom-loving peoples still lost China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin.

We committed our forces to Korea to stop and impede an invasion from the north. Right there, at that very moment, this nation’s leaders should have known we were in trouble. Stop and impede is not wiping out the root of North Korean aggressiveness. It is instead the equivalent of pushing the bully back rather than smashing him in the nose, gouging out his eyes, and breaking both his arms. Today, because of our faint-hearted unwillingness to destroy North Korean command, control, and political hierarchy, North Korea is a rouge totalitarian nation armed with nuclear weapons.

Eisenhower enabled the CIA to recruit, train, and arm Cuban dissidents; he promised air support for their invasion. Kennedy permitted the invasion to go forward but reneged on air support… the invasion failed. This demonstration of weakness and timidity, this blatant disregard for those lives within the invasion force, bolstered Castro’s image and prestige. Domestically and throughout the world, Castro confirmed that America can be managed and manipulated; it also verified that American resolve is limited. Khrushchev and his politburo were watching.

President Kennedy is credited with ending the Cuban missile threat — which only existed because we did not invade Cuba!

Laos and Vietnam are other examples of America’s inability to commit to a foreign policy task; at the time, we actually believed that a show of force was enough. How very silly of us. Such harebrained behavior all stems from a canon of foolish naïveté; this American doctrine of naïveté established precedence that is very hard to overcome. After all, our presidents want to be re-elected or revered; elected representatives want the wind at their back; the entire objective is retention of power, therefore the concern is safeguarding political interest. Hence, a guiding rule of the elected applied: Controversy in any form should be avoided.

From a strategic, even tactical prospective, in order to disable the North Vietnamese from invading the South Vietnamese, the United States should have invaded the North. That should have been the minimum requirement for engagement; if congress disapproved of such an invasion then it would be clear that America could not support the South Vietnamese people. But once again the policy half-measure won the argument and 58,000 or so Americans, not to mention many thousands more of Vietnamese, lost their lives because of the bewildering incompetence of the administration(s) and congress(es).

Soon, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver and America is immersed in the utility of the same head-in-the-sand foreign policy; a policy of half-measure and denial. This administration (not unlike the many that preceded Teddy Roosevelt) will not accept the reality of world affairs and as a consequence, there are two distinctive operating dimensions. One is the department-agencies of state and the other real-time reality. Neither seems impaired by the existence of the other.

However, unlike the foreign policy challenges of yesterday, this time the threat has the biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to choose from. This particular threat has demonstrated its resolve by killing thousands of innocents (regardless of their sameness of religion); what they want, no sane person or state can give them. There is nothing to negotiate over, no other options are open to the West, except deterrence by any and all means.

But instead of addressing the issue unilaterally and head-on, the Obama administration is contemplating self-invented options where no option exists. Obama will inevitably break with half-measure and just execute a full measure of denial.

Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon; neither Israel nor the United States will act to eliminate this threat to Middle East stability. There will be no embargo or blockade, the UN will accept an Iranian declaration that these weapons are for defensive measures only; Obama and Clinton will submit to the UN acceptance.

Iranian prestige will rise, particularly amongst the hard-line fringe of Islamic militarism. Syria notes the weakness and re-establishes final control of Lebanon. The political-terrorist tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas will be validated; by any and all means the radical elements of Islam will dominate over the moderate. The stage will be set for WWIII…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid represents the culmination of more than a century of governmental ingress into the affairs of its citizens. The triumvirate is no less than a continuance of governmental dominance over the once closely guarded liberties of the American citizen. I do believe their appearance of all-knowing, cloaked as liberal progressivism, now has evolved into a pervasive, do-it-the-way-I-insist, Pelosi/Reid legislative doctrinaire. They have forced through congress a Healthcare Bill despite the ever growing consequences; they have formed an alliance of the ideologically inspired all pledged to commit, if necessary, seppuku in order to advance the president’s socialistic agenda.

This liberal progressive movement espoused, in varying degrees of effectiveness by Democratic, as well as Republican administrations, was started in the beginning of the 1900’s. The concept that government had/has a larger role to play in society prevailed over those of traditional thoughts. Legislation enforced the initial progressive concept, government grew into predominance; effectually, the people traded their liberty for the notion that government could take better care of their primal needs than themselves.

I believe that the impetus, that engine the prevailing thought of liberal progressivism, is not just a falsity of premise; but instead, a premeditated act of fraudulent inducement of gigantic proportion. In other words, with willful forethought the elected, the special interest non-elected, the appointed, and those politicians (in office or out) that contrive for pecuniary gain have utilized all resources and measures, be it statutory compliant or extralegal, to maneuver — manipulate and otherwise induce — the American people to forfeit their individual liberty for the promise of what was either never delivered or delivered at a price or means of conveyance substantially different than promised.

Fascism, communism, and most of the variances of popular socialism all have the one commonality: The ideal of perfection; this ideal is founded on the supposition of a conceived intrinsic to socialistic doctrine; a covenant that takes on the guise of a sublime moral righteousness. This basis of such righteousness is identified by the following subtexts.

1. The rhetorical exploitation of reversed popular xenophobia, (delivered by a heroic orator) for example, the liberal progressives blame the unnamed ‘far-right people’ (formally known as conservatives) that are out to get the people of color. Scurrilously, and with pontificating manner, they express their outrage. For example, one such outrage is that racist or near-racist ‘feelings’ are still apart of America’s society; this is always coupled with the steadfast historical go-to pronouncement of economic-prevalent societal class disparity.
2. The commonality of ‘isms’ continue with the assertion (always without evidence) that certain persons (Dick Cheney) are declared persons of evil intent. This usually is followed up with a list of evil doers; such as traditional institutions (CIA), political parties, private and public traded entities (insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers), and finally, contrary belief systems, both secular and religious.
3. There is or looms a crisis of such proportion that the nation state will suffer irreversible consequences if power normally held within the providence of congress, parliament, or bundestag is not ceded to the governing administration in the immediate.

The false hope of the ideal has repetitively, for thousands of years, prompted humankind into action. This all too human inclination to create, establish and embrace perfect has tantalized, intrigued and obsessed humanity. Most intensely, since the alchemist pledged the transmuting of baser metals into gold the false hope of establishing socio-political economic systems of ideal principles has always resulted with a governing system (benevolent or not) of autocratic-tyranny. The concept of achieving the ideal political and economic system, even though the ideal predicts consequences more subjective than objective, such ambiguity of message does not deter the proponents of these ‘isms’; seemingly, the receptive recipients of these messages-of-falsity prefer the subjective requiring no substantial evidence.

The concept of a perfect society governed by the most righteous and wise has experienced (even though they have always failed upon application) gratuitous appeal and almost immediate popular acceptance. Plato may have been the first liberal progressive; surely, ‘The Republic’ and its ideal philosopher-king concept of the perfect system rings, for a liberal progressive, as a plausible beginning of governing sensibility. The Obama believers now have sophisticated Plato’s original concept with the reality-application of Pelosi and Reid.

I call this ideal or idea of perfection a false hope. It is a falsity of premise because the ending is, with rare historical exception, the antitheses of their stated result.

In order to impose the ideal upon a society, individual liberty must and will subordinate to the supremacy of the state. History has proven time and time again that this ideal system of governing is a pseudo-choice, fabricated by the politically naïve in collaboration with the idealistically inclined who view the world more as an academic project than as a world of lethal conflicting interest. These propagators of liberal persuasion esteem a United Nations approach to worldly issues and concerns. The concept of a perfect government or the implementation of an ideal society requires every segment of human behavior to adhere and comply. Compliance and adherence require, as a natural consequence, draconian application. Such an application defeats the very idea of an ideal government or society.

History has documented the consequence of the first triumvirate that outcome destroyed even the semblance of a Roman Republic. The price of liberty is self-reliance, the spirit of essentialism, vigorous participation in one’s government, a steadfast mistrust of politicians, as well as government.

The ideals expounded by liberal progressives are a ruse, a falsity, a contextual of false hope; liberty is too precious to trade for government dominance and ingress…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The election results of Tuesday, November 3, 2009 were classic and pivotal. The Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey did signal a vector to the political right. I believe the Democratics’ defeat indicates that citizens are wrestling with the “whole truth” of the entire Obama-Pelosi-Reid concept of governing. The results of the most recent national election is no longer an indicator of future electoral outcomes; “In the spirit of change we can believe in,” things have changed.

Voters are specifically apprehensive on three topics: The economy, the deficit, and the nation’s high percentage of unemployed. The Democratic response to all of these voter concerns is a 2,000 page document of ambiguous nonsense called Universal Healthcare. Then there is the dead-on-arrival-at-the-Senate Cap & Trade Bill; the one that passed the house of Pelosi with six Republican votes. This, followed up with Geithner’s treasury, seeking to enhance its power by undermining the means of entrepreneurs. All the while, the TARP and Obama stimulus folks are busy spending — or should I say, giving away — billions of dollars to either Democratic political interest or simply issuing these billions into the Obama department of the abyss. Now if this is not enough to angry voters, the Democratic majority is knee-deep in creating the largest deficit ever while Mr. Biden and company are inventing the number of jobs created or saved.

Respective of the results of the last election, one cannot lose sight of the political objective, the one continuum of vigilant regard, the never ending fight for conservative principles and values. Winning an election or not, it’s never over.

Prepare for 2010. This is an election of all-or-nothing consequence; the true test of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama’s governing acceptance. This election will be the definitive affirmation or discard of the liberal progressives’ brand of governing America.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama administration cannot deny the forthcoming electoral negatives brewing in Virginia and New Jersey; it seems even the one congressional seat in New York where the Republican Party’s vote was split between two candidates has ended in favor of the conservative. It is possible that the Republicans could sweep these elections. If this Republican victory occurs, the elixir of Obama’s version of “change we can believe in” will stand diluted; evidencing that the Obama charm is proving ineffectual.

Finding fault or a reason for the deflating of Obama-mania will be the topic amongst pundits, political leaders, and the elected. I think the most interesting debriefing will be the Obama dream-team of electoral geniuses. I wonder where they will point the finger of blame… Surely the Obama dream will not point to administration policy as the cause for defeat; more than likely they will blame — in one or combination — the Democratic candidate, Republican skullduggery, or racism.

I say that Obama’s defeat, withstanding the president’s personal effort to solicit the contrary, is solely attributed to the political wrong headedness of his priorities (healthcare before jobs) and his insistence on ultra-left policies. The American public is wakening up to the Democratic Party’s idea of governing and see danger lurking about the by ways of congress. It is the (self-described) liberal progressive politicians, the ones that value the collective over individual liberty that present today’s lethal political concern. These socialists, elitists, believers of a grandiose-omnipotent federal government, are the provocateurs of Obama’s descriptive of change. It is these ideologues that believe they are “the truth, the light, and the way”. It is their superimposed hubris that enables their profound disregard and disdain for individual liberty, as well as the legacy of American values.

The Obama imprint of liberal progressive is founded on a Marxist belief: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Under the guiding principles of socialism he promises to spread the wealth; his justification is founded on “fairness”.

The leaders of the Democratic majority and their minions shamelessly distort reality, openly lie; they practice befuddlement by the facility of legalese and misdirection. They purposefully deceive the public and abate the intensity of truthfulness in favor of half-a-truth or falsity.

By Tuesday, in just a couple of days, a new measure of political will and conservative soundness will appear; hopefully, the resounding defeat of democratic candidates will help defeat Obama care and damper the Obama myth of super-persuasion.