Authored by William Robert Barber

“We want our money back. We want our money back! And we’re going to get your money back-every dime, each and every dime.”

Does anyone actually believe the sincerity of President Obama’s declaration? Sounds more like his pledge of CSPAN transparency; wherein, instead of televised real-time transparency, healthcare debates were held behind the closed doors of a Democrats-only caucus. Details of exactness as to the contextual merits of the actual legislation were safely deposited within the mind of the closed-lipped Senator Reid; clearly, Mr. Obama has an issue with truthfulness.

Obama’s ideologically enhanced litany of leftist-progressive political principles has eclipsed his ability to enable and implement the political pragmatism presently required. He just can’t bring himself to adjust to the new political realities. His innately intuitive Chicago breed street smarts have retrograded in favor of his political-ALFA impulses; sensibility has been trounced by populist rhetoric. He insists on scurrilous name calling, threats of punitive taxation, and the blatantly stupid continuum of faux charges that only create market-uncertainty when market-certainly is the requirement.

The TARP funding was uneven in application, simpleton in language, forced into place by the inertia of self-induced panic, and wholly void of the diligence required in general prudent lawmaking behavior. Our esteemed elected officials demonstrated the totality of their incompetence by enacting this monstrosity of discombobulating legislation. Now Mr. Obama wants to change the rules of the TARP funding by enhancing the lending agreement, supposedly, in favor of the government. He has decided that the banks got a good deal and now must pay an arbitrary surtax.

When the too-big-to fail banks received their funding (some forced to take the money) the lender did not contractually specify the governess of a pay-czar, a restriction on bonuses, or an additional tax on revenue; indeed, the government just gave up the funds. Well, by means vested into place by the Federal Reserve, the interest on funds- near zero, the banks paid back the money plus interest.  On top of that many of these banks declared huge profits; Obama declares such actions as the “fat-cats.” Imagine, showing a profit, paying federal/state taxes on such and benefiting their shareholders. How unseemly!

Either we are a country of formal laws or not. Rule by arbitrary legislation is un-American, an indicator of despotic inclination, and a definitive of socialistic governess. Obama and his liberal-progressives cannot run roughshod over the fundamental principles of formal law or the rational precepts of this country’s implied precedence. This president cannot manage, lead, or attempt to govern this nation by ad hoc means; a populist agenda requires substantive rules of evidence. For example, what specifically is the lawful advantage of implementing a bank-tax? And why not tax AIG, GMC, and Chrysler?

Obama with the sleight of a the right populist hand has  the intent to imposed the coercive apparatus of government upon a vital sector of this nation’s economy; while arbitrarily, with the left hand, he supports by the simplicity of tax-exception, other certain government funded entities  that were also too-big to fail.

These Obama gals and guys are lost in the distance between the theories prompted by academic inquiry and the reality-law of imprecise results.

They just do not understand that liberty and freedom, for the peoples of America, is of sublime value; withstanding the surety that is promised as possible by Obama’s political brethren. Americans are not willing to limit their ethos of individualism in exchange for any socialistic utopia.

We should require that before running for the highest office in the land that the candidate must manage a candy-store for 1-year.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Spurred on by a Bush bashing media, a less than convincing John McCain, and an economy unexpectedly turned upside down by an inexplicable financial-banking-insurance calamity, the electorate overwhelmingly voted in Obama and his democratic colleagues. The Democratic Party, with an arrogance that originates from the assurance of ultimate power, unilaterally attempted to turn this politically center-right nation into a leftist-socialist nation state. The leadership of Pelosi and Reid, pumped up by their newfound political potency, decided early in their tenure on the power-tactics of purposeful, excluding Republicans from the legislative process. They have practiced where required the bullying of their Blue Dog Democrats. For key members of congress, the leadership created a milieu of creative offerings; these offerings came in the form of persuasive enticements. Including cash rewards, the specific exemption for a certain state, as well as all unions of their heretofore pecuniary obligation — all of these extraordinary inducements are in play while leadership blatantly ignores the reasonable concerns of the nation’s constituents.

The hagiographic pronouncements of an enchanted-by-Obama media favored the presidential candidate throughout his campaign; indeed, there is observable evidence that this very same mainstream media (in contrast to the customary effort placed on unbiased reporting) has extended its favoritism into the first year of the Obama presidency .This liberal-progressive-socialist president and his brethren of the also elected have heretofore enjoyed, in general, a robust positive cheering of support from a media of like-same-political belief.

In addition to such cheerleading, often enough, the seemingly liberal personalities that host and manage the non-cable networks and its cable affiliates, willingly, often with not even a pretense of presenting a counter-argument, present programming that is an effectual endorsement of Democratic policies. This consistency of press patronage is best described as a Barrack-can-do-no-wrong viewpoint, rendering to the receiving public a politically charged prospective that catalyst a counter-prospective from a constituency of independent and conservative viewers, listeners, and readers. The media-reporting by liberal progressive sympathizers are in fact nothing less than a broadcast of appreciation for Obama’s policies. The liberal media has established a value-plus certification of the current administration’s actions. They have a platform designed more for ideological alliance then a media-platform designed for skeptical journalists.

Interestingly, despite media bias, the facts on the ground cannot be denied; such political consequences are clearly disturbing to the liberal progressives. Imagine loosing the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey and now having the super-blue state of Massachusetts vote red. Well, the unimaginable has happened — Scott Brown the Republican beat the liberal progressive Democrat in the bluest of blue states.

Now how can the liberal-bias spin this election as anything other than a rejection of Obama’s policies? In the finality of result, irrespective of the media’s own political prospective, the American people can think for themselves. The people have, in general, rejected the liberal progressive agenda; specifically the people have rejected the Obama Care legislation, the excessive federal spending, and legislation that adds to the largeness of government. This special election is a great victory for the conservative cause.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Issues of concern for the Obama administration is the ever-growing debt service to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the billions of taxpayer funds at risk over at AIG, Chrysler, and GMC; but no worries, says Obama. No need for consternation is the prepared-delivered-in unanimity assurance of government officials. All the while the very same Obama disciples who stress confidence in their financial-economic initiatives acknowledge the persistence of a historically high unemployment percentage; respective of the plainness of this (historically high unemployment) empirical obvious, they (those within the Obama administration that knows all things) insistence on employing a continuance of more of the same. Another indicator of the administration’s dutiful commitment to practicing the dark and foreboding artfulness of counter-intuitivism is its declared recognition that the employment positives are only in government jobs not private. Hence the administration has decided that it is small business that needs economic assurance so they (those that know just about everything) create policies that work against the interest of small business.

Interestingly, as Obama stresses that we all must simply recognize that turning around this economy is difficult; therefore, the administration’s advice is patience. Obama since October has not mentioned the stimulus; nevertheless, he does, without fanfare or clarification emphasis the need to target economically stressed entities. I personally have no idea what targeting in application actually means. By avoiding the desperate call for federal funding from a number of impaired states, Obama’s economic team has decided to respond to the brewing emotionally charged popular sediment against banks and bonuses. Naturally, the Obama response is to tax; of course, the probability of this tax being legislated into law is farfetched the president and his team did have an excellent photo opportunity.

If they tax the banks then maybe (thinks the Obama economic team) we can move some of that money to cover the Fannie and Freddie open ended multi-billion dollar federally backed credit obligation. Or if that doesn’t fly, maybe help the auto companies feed money into a number one administration objective: Hiring more union workers regardless of market or operational requirements.

The Democratic majority in Congress advises thus: Whether we of the elected (on the merits) are right or whether were wrong it is still better to pass this healthcare legislation. No matter the financial dispose of future consequence, the logical probability of certain integrally harmful pieces and parts or the blatantly obvious constitutional conflict between interconnecting mandates; ignore all. Take no notice; indeed even better close your eyes to the creative budgeting gimmicks. Please simply disregard Nebraska’s exclusion from states’ pecuniary consideration and fee obligations due under this pending legislation. Get over it. Everything in politics cost something. Remember! This healthcare legislation is the single greatest gift that the Democratic Party has ever given to the American people. Oh, and to those in the motherland that may disagree with this legislation: We liberal-progressives are harbingers as well as wizards, we can with absolute surety say, that in time you dissentients are going to love it. Besides most of these naysayers are Republican dupes and tea party radicals. So say the Obama Democrats…

The right of statutory recourse is a quintessential ingredient of American government’s contract with its citizens. Recourse has numerous forms including petitions, elections, referendums, legislation, and law suits. All of these instruments of recourse are traditionally inherent to an American’s rightfulness. Any action by the elected to inhibit, impair, minimize, circumvent, or disregard by means legislative or extralegal a citizen’s right to recourse is considered a violation of governing principles and subject to impeachment. So says Bill Barber. In other words, this next election is the test for constituency acceptance or rejection. The majority in congress are going to do whatever their going to do. And citizens have an obligation to unseat these liberal progressives in favor of conservatives; inclusive to such a result, it is implied that no matter what these socialists impose the new congress can dispose.


Authored by William Robert Barber

I am not sure of the details as to when and I would be guessing as to how. But I think at certain times, starting from the beginnings of American history (such times distinguished by crises perceived or real) by extent variant, means implied, methods explicit, politicians seeking to impose an ideological agenda took advantage of the particular crises with one predominate result: To enhance the power of the federal government. Never have the actions of these politicians, prompted by a crisis of design or real, resulted in the abatement of federal power.

Politicians (elected and common) in cahoots with a somewhat willing governmental bureaucracy while purposefully advantaging the historical sociology of an ambivalent often confused, sometimes frightened, citizenry. These very same politicians have deliberately rearranged and often decisively forsaken the constitutionally founded apparatuses of constitutional governing. Their actions, utilizing the imperial-like edits of legislation or ideological edits that spur beneficial initiatives, have willfully violated the long-established nuance, connotation, and consequence of the constitution’s intent. The spirit, even its established meaningfulness, particularly, regarding the constitution’s explicit federal limitations of authority and supremacy over the governess of states and individual citizens, has effectually been challenged. These politicians of liberal progressive persuasion have for all intents and purposes disabled the constitution’s contextual integrity.

Wherein originally, the idea that the founders crafted into documental form the specifically expressed, uniquely American, political belief of limited government has been vacated in favor of the liberal-progressive persuasion or interpretation that the constitution is a ‘living-ever evolving document.’ This decisive white to black change of constitutional reading has rendered a founding document that is subject to revisionism. The practical result of this liberal-progressive-revisionist remake of our constitution’s original intent is a government of boundlessly omnipotent power.

Certainly, since the turn of the 19th century, the federal government’s insatiable uncontrollable inertia for more power has circumvented, violated, or by implication revised the lawful meaningfulness of the nation’s constitution. The consequence of such has seriously threatened the sovereignty of state’s right and diminished the freedom and liberty of individual citizens.

Most importantly or most dastardly for those of conservative principles, these manipulators, masters of lawmaking inventiveness have captured the three most important aspects of governing control: The first is the power to regulate; which in pure form is the unfettered inducement of draconian-like power. Such power in practical terms translate into the power of defining the meaning of legislation. The second is implicit calculation of inducing a legal procedural process wherein the layperson requires expert knowledge or must, at ones personal expense, rely on licensed by the state representative in order for one to protect oneself from governmental abuse. The elected, in majority, govern through the creative manipulation of ambiguously designed legal language that is in perpetual symbiosis with the judicial, as well as, legislative system. The third is the positively presented propagation of the first two aspects of governing control so to initiate a continuum of populous acceptance. This populous acceptance is in coordination with politicians buying votes by promising cash and rewards. Obama was very effective with his promise to level the playing field by giving money to those that pay no federal income tax.

The voting public is now at an interesting political crossroads. Do we Americans want a larger greater government or a smaller less powerful? I do believe Obama has been the perfect picture to go with the words. He is a socialist. He represents bigger and more; irrespective of tea parties, a resistant Republican defense, and an ever growing contrariness to the Obama administration; taxes will go up and government will expand. But the next election is right around the corner and the congressional majority is sticking to stupid. And I do have the faith that America will vote conservative in the next election so with the grace of sensibility and a few Marines the Democrats will lose congressional seats en gros…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The continuances by politicians, news print, media, pundits, and entertainers posing as journalist, of dancing around the deductively obvious instead of objectively stating the transpiration of a particular event is intellectually stifling. Recently, we experienced a terrorist-crazy load up with explosives, board a US bound plane with the absolutely clear intent of killing everyone on that plane and as many people on the ground in Detroit as possible. This was a premeditated attack by Al-Qaeda; an act of war perpetrated by this nation’s sworn enemy; instead of shipping this crazy to detention in Guantanamo he was issued an attorney, read his rights, and jailed pending a court hearing to determine whether or not he will be detained. This methodology of legal-disposition is bird-brain stupid. This terrorist attacked US citizens, their property, and their institutions — and we treat him as though he robbed a bank.

Withstanding, the Obama administration’s failure to stop this terrorist from boarding the plane in the first cause and experiencing the ignominy of listening to Secretary of Home Land Security on Sunday last tell the national television audience that everything went according to plan, that the system worked, he was a lone wolf, and other etcetera nonsense. The president added coal to the fire by doing the very best he could to not call this terrorist incident a terrorist incident.

The ever so naive Obama is befuddled. After all, he has addressed the reasonableness of extending his hand of peace and tolerance with his speech in Cairo. He has added the rational mixture of “let’s all work together for the common good” and has apologized (repeatedly) for US unilateral aggressiveness; he even eliminated the use of the phrase ‘War on Terror.” And most importantly, as a good faith gesture, he is closing Guantanamo because the prison is an anathema to terrorist, might be terrorist, almost terrorist, Muslims world-wide, and of course without a doubt of hesitation by Obama, such a closing will significantly hamper Al-Qaeda recruiting.

However, this is not the only instance of dancing around the deductively obvious. Congress is addressing the passing of healthcare legislation. Noting that few have actually read the aforesaid, and most who have not read the pending legislation admit that if they read it they would not understand its content. Whatever happened to the concept of prudent oversight and willfully deliberate due diligence? We Americans are allowing the political majority to ramrod critical legislation as if the issue was transparent, commonly decipherable, and opaque. The majority agrees, it is not perfect. Indeed, interestingly, many of the senators that voted for the legislation did so only after insuring their state was except from its pending pecuniary obligations. Blatant payoffs and self-serving earmarks are the sugar Reid utilized to insure the 60-vote requirement. If a private company acted in this manner, the attorney-general would indict for violations, criminal and civil.

In order for the Obama liberal progressive to fashion the nation to accept the transition to socialism, under the guise of ‘for the common good,’ they must stymie all democratic procedures by means within their power, extralegal or by ad-hoc actions. Their goal is to supplement the principle of laws and general rational precepts with an ever enhancing amplitude of governing bureaucracy; the more complex the regulatory compliance, the easier for the socialist to control the process of decision making. The goal of Obama is to take vast powers and legislate under a platform of ordinances and decrees.

The Obama administration coupled with the congressional majority is the single greatest threat to America’s traditional understanding and practice of liberty and freedom.