Authored by William Robert Barber

I do believe that we of variant political prospective lose sight of the material concerns of and for Obama Care. Although cost is critical, it is not the financial cost to the nation, but the cost of liberty and freedom that creates the matter of material concern. There are others, such as Obama’s advocacy for ‘card-check’ laws which favor labor union expansion, the so-called “Green Energy Policy” coupled with the regulatory oversight of greenhouse gases and their investment expenditures. And then there is dealing with the swords-swirling in-hand Obama cavalry charge response toward any parapet of non-acceptance or contrary opinion. Clearly, bullying is the political tactic of the current administration; just as certain is Obama’s (media endorsed) unilateral disregard for the consequences of such bullying.

Of course there would be no bullying if the bully didn’t represent the majority on the playground of congress. Remembering, pushing and shoving begets pushing and shoving. Some fine day the majority will be the minority and like-same will be the declared causation of the tactics employed. One could point out that this strategy of common tactics is detrimental to the cohesiveness of working in the interest of the nation. But then, why do we cling to such objectives (such as cohesiveness) that are more mythic than objective?

Factually, once again in American history, the stakes are too high to compromise. In today’s political climate, one either is — or not; political prospective has come down to exactly that. Either one believes that utilizing government to spread the wealth is a moral virtue; or one believes that by authorizing (the enforcement of law) more government prerogatives as described is nothing less than simple federal empowerment that will result in the continuous abatement of individual liberty and freedom.

The liberal progressives could care less what the healthcare legislation costs and the conservatives consider any increase of taxpayer funds/monies into government an enrichment of federal governing power to the detriment of state sovereignty and a citizen’s lawful prerogatives. Conservatives believe that the ideological beliefs of liberal progressives negatively implicate every aspect of America’s being. In addition, conservatives believe that all political, social, economic, even cultural actions imposed by liberal progressives are designed to establish a socialistic society. Another material concern for conservatives is that the liberal progressives will impose a society wherein the federal government, by the empowerment granted by creeping institutionally delivered federal authority, in the eventual will effectually disable all individual thinking from cradle to grave in favor of what is in the interest of the collective. Such is to be determined by a governmental committee that establishes the order of common good.

For over a hundred years the Elephant and the Donkey have foot-worked their way around the ring; jabbing and thrusting at each other while seeking the opportunity to deliver a knock-out punch. Each dish-out expletives and fronts a politician to perjure and deceive; political parties exist to retain or attain governmental power and therefore, within their sphere, the factual or truthful are mere subordinates. Governmental apparatuses, bureaucracies, committees, boards, and the actions of leaders have been cheerfully purchased from the less than watchful citizenry by the metaphoric exchange of pretense, deception, and purposeful ambiguity.

Political corruption has not just survived but thrived. As a purposeful inducement to a continuance of voter apathy, a little less than 50% of Americans pay any federal taxes whatsoever as a consequence of having no skin in the game (purposefully enacted by politicians to buy votes); a malaise of disinterest has permeated every election, be it city, state, or national. In practical terms citizens’ oversight of governing wherefores is subject to the utility of very expensive lawyers, courts, and a judge’s interpretation of what is.

Well, what is now a law can be changed; we do have recourse but we must act. We conservatives must close ranks and elect conservatives to every elective vacancy; from city to federal, we need to capture, subdue, and cast out all officeholders of socialistic beliefs. There can be no quarter or compromise, Obama has made his intention very obvious: he is a socialist. In response, in the interest of protecting the ideals of our Constitution, we must gain super-majority control of congress.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The fat lady sang. Despite populous efforts to the contrary and zero Republican votes, the process of reconciliation won the day for the socialist and their brethren of leftist ideologues. The liberal progressive enriched Congress has legislatively turned the ship of state onto a sharp 270 degrees to port; the Democrats have won a great victory. Of course these proponents of “change we can believe in” or in other words, the congressional majority, the very ones that have not read the ‘Healthcare Law of the Land.’ At best they can only guess at the unfolding of subsequent possibilities or the ramifications of unintended consequences; of course the only certainty is more government, hence more union employment and higher taxes.

If rescission of the healthcare law is the political focus of us conservatives and such is our “Remember the Alamo”, we have an almost impossible task. Withstanding the recently levied against the “feds’” multi-state lawsuits and the probability of a Supreme Court review, Obama has done his bane upon the efforts of conservatives. Repealing this legislation will be very, very difficult. Nevertheless, such is the sole recourse of counter-Obama opportunity; there is no other alternative but to throw all of these liberal progressives out of office. In other words, the majority control of congress is not sufficient; we will need a super majority to overcome the inevitable presidential veto.

Obama the centrist has finally been exposed to the American people as the liberal progressive socialist of unmitigated origin. With the 15 recess appointments that boldly define the favoritism of union appeal, ‘card check’ legislation so to enable union expansion by disabling the heretofore anonymous voting rights, and the clear appointment of persons’ of leftist credentials.

Obama has taken the glove and slapped the conservatives across the face. “Pistols or swords” is Obama’s offer. I think we should aim for the heart of their socialistic agenda and choose both, pistol AND sword. For the cause of conservative principles, inclusive of personal liberty and freedom, the winning of the forthcoming electoral duel is critical. In this 2010 voting event we must not simply gain a majority — we must demand a super-majority. Anything less than such is, for those of conservative principles, an unsustainable intolerable with political consequences of damning proportion.

Surely we can expect the Democrats to pull out all resources to thwart any and all efforts to replace their majority; and as a prelude to Obama’s reelection in 2012, liberal-media stunts will be the order of the 2010 election period. At stake is simply everything…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The progressives have the wind at their back, a willing crew, and control of the helm wheel; the Obama ship of state, as Herman Melville once noted, “cleaves the brine with pinions afloat.” By means extraordinary the progressives have fitted the objections of the majority against healthcare into the bottle of disregard and tossed that bottle into the ocean.

As never before, the progressives of socialistic intentions have turned this right-central nation abruptly to the political left; the intelligentsias have won the day. Hosannas! Obama and his liberal progressives have achieved a great victory.

The Democrats have aligned their votes; the healthcare legislation is a reality. This political party, the party of FDR, is as in pre-WWII the catalyst, the implementer of radical economic and thus socio-cultural change. America is being pushed, unwillingly, into a European style of socialism; we the people can look forward to increased taxes, more governmental interdiction in our private life, and the hiring of many more federal employees.

Proportionately as never before the conservative movement is on a tear; as if on steroids, the opposition to Obama and his flock of progressives is focused and pointed. The objective is to retain and enrich this rally of anti-Obama policies into the November elections. The goal is to gain majority control of both houses of congress and position the electorate to vote down the healthcare ramification while capturing the presidency in 2012.

The conservative movement with its present anti-Obama government enthusiasm must not simply rescind what can be rescinded within the healthcare legislation but reinstate the original meaningfulness of the Constitution. The movement must limit and impose restrictions on federal power particularly where that power encroaches on state’s rights. Conservative must attain a super majority of public opinion and sweep liberal progressive representatives, their ideology, and their effect. We must stymie, block, and disable any ability of the Obama government to enact their socialistic, liberal, progressive ideals on this nation state.

Obama promised change and he is delivering the very change he declared; he and his followers must be stopped. Let’s defend the Constitutional concept of check and balance, state’s rights, and individual liberty by voting these progressives not simply out of office but out of contemplation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Today, there is no doubt that the House of Representatives and its ipso facto socialist majority, the very political party of Democrats that parade under the more marketable guise of liberal progressives, the ones that are excellently exemplified by the leadership of Senators Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid… they legislate and govern as they please.

For reasons of extreme and timely perfection and a lot of help from President Bush and the Republicans, these soi-disant representatives of the American people have the power to abuse. 2010 is, for the conservative governess of this country, the Rubicon of non-recourse. Either we overtake the majority in the House and the Senate, or we have doomed this nation-state to socialism. There can be no quarter, no compromise, no settling for half-a-loaf — either we overtake the opposition in whole, or we fail. If we fail to gain control, the Democratic majority will deem their socialistic agenda into law.

Interestingly, the governing thesis of the liberal progressives aka socialists, despite their insistence to the contrary, upon implementation are establishing nothing less than a bureaucratically enriched oligarchy. Truly, as the opposition is fond of pointing out, elections have consequences; nevertheless, Harvard graduate or not, no matter the IQ or the dynamics of one’s rhetorical eloquence, the round will not fit into the square.

As long as the sum of 1+1 equals 2, rain wet, and gravity constant: The economic-socio-cultural ideals touted by Liberal Progressives will never bear up to the reality of the whimsicalness of markets nor the predominance of the often operationally dysfunctional, and the always unpredictability of pseudo-sapient behavior.

Government cannot regulate good sense or morality, nor can governments anticipate and act with timeliness. Hell, government cannot even manage its own designs with any consistency; government pledges and promises transparency, ethics, statutory adherence, and fiscal righteousness — but delivery of such always falls short because at its ethos, governments are corrupt.

The basis of a progressive’s economic plan and relevant operational agenda is founded a continuum of socio-economic grading. The goal is to eradicate individual exceptional(ism). The initial objective is to abate the distinction between the have-less and the have-more. Naturally, in an oligarchy the wise and sublime are granted a waiver.

For Obama and brethren, the order of battle is the governmental control of healthcare, energy resources, and education. To follow is a world order wherein governess is manifested in a consortium of willing nation-states. The United States of America is the only super power. Therefore, in the interest of ‘good faith’, the objective is to achieve a common denomination of power and resources; therefore, this nation must relinquish its superpower status and affiliate by subordination to an equal nation status. This equilibrium amongst nations is the price and the precedence to the universal realization of social justice.

As stated — but unlike Lenin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s China — what these progressives espouse for America is impossible to implement. However, they do have the wherewithal to damage the financial, military, socio-educational and economic present and future of this country. The danger is real. These progressives are hell-bent to discharge their ideals on America. We must defeat them…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Dependence is a mutually accepted, very human obligatory; such starting with family, continuing with friends, teams, and so on. However, a citizen’s dependence on government has a meaningfulness beyond the simple acceptance of services. Indeed, dependence on government will cost one a portion — if not all — of one’s individual freedom, as well as initiate a society of victims and whiners. Inherent to the dependence on government services are the abatement, if not outright, rescission of self-reliance, self-determination, and the American spirit of existentialism.

Firstly, the premise that the government and its instruments (the elected, non-elected, appointed, regulators) are adhering to their obligations of service in a satisfactory measure and manner, is a consideration of constant concern. I would submit that considering the almost Byzantine structure and massive bureaucratically enriched infrastructure of the federal, state, county, and city governments, regardless of their honest intent or not, the likeliness of 75% effectiveness coupled with any reasonable level of consistent efficiency, is nil. But more importantly, is the government’s  jurisdictional expansion and the varied diversity to their claim of providence.

Secondly, these governments that we depend on are in fact enterprises. Indeed, in many instances they are monolithic monopolies with their own enforcement capabilities. They manage golf courses, bars, restaurants, tennis courts, pools, and parks. Governments are in the lottery racket, have owned and managed brothels, and card rooms. For a profit they confiscate (utilizing the civil & criminal RICO Act) and redistribute cash, cars, boats, and airplanes. Governments account for almost half the cost of gasoline, an increasing percentage of taxes and fees on cigarettes and liquor; via regulatory gimmickry they take a slice off of every material transaction in America.

Thirdly, this Obama government, as if to make President Bush a fiscal conservative instead of the spender that he and his Republican majority surely were, has pulled all the stops on pushing, pulling, and forcing a federal entitlement called “Obama care” on this nation . The final legislative bill remains a mystery; but under all possibilities, the legislation creates another complex of jointed and disjointed agencies and departments. Such a complex has its own issues of cost and management; withstanding, I believe the real cost is a citizen’s dependence on its government. A government that by means of its own can, and often does, change the rules of the game as it suits the perception of its needs.

Charged to manage the affairs of the nation, within the confines of its Constitution, each state in the nation voted for a very strong federal system of governess. Over the last two hundred years or so, this federal system has succeeded in its efforts by bequeath, mandate, or regulation to increase unanticipated power to itself. The result has effectually abated the power originally ordained to the states. For citizens, the governments have successfully designed a culture of compulsory, even expected, welfare-like dependence.

Congressperson have meandered into the purgatory of perpetual electoral inertia; wherein, fundraising, perks, the next election, party politics, and general nonsense has captured the mainstay of its time and effort. The result, for the most part, is the nothingness of strive for the sake of a win; all the while running up a federal deficit of elephantine proportion.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The first cause of understanding the merits of a contrary prospective is complicated by one’s predeterminations. As is often experienced, one can look but not see. A person’s social, religious, and political values are sacred. Therefore, within the frame of challenging while endeavoring to comprehend differing beliefs, the contesting of prospective ideals demand a medium of respect.

In the second cause, I do think that one must presume that there is a right and wrong to the implementation of a political ideology. Surely, a totalitarian state — regardless of its economic or financial stability — would not be tolerated simply because such a state would deprive its citizens of individual liberty and fundamental freedoms.  Therefore, proportionate to the application of governing rightfulness, there is the overriding virtue of individual liberty that, for the conservative thinker, trumps governing result. This virtue, liberty, cannot be transgressed upon.

I now seek the answer to the question of “why”. Why does a person declare and adhere to the social, political, and economic manifesto of liberal progressivism versus a conservative alternative?

As a conservative, to inquire to the question of why one would champion liberal progressivism, instinctively implies that the conservative inquirer is asserting a degree of transcendent, if not hardnosed superiority over the liberal progressive viewpoint. Although such an attitude of transcendent superiority is appealing to the contestants of either political bias, no such implication should be asserted.

The progressive movement believes and the conservative responds accordingly to the following:

(LP) They believe the rights of man reside within the secular means and ethos of a government designed to encumber itself with all of one’s tangible and intangible concerns; that such a government is best managed by those that know best. They believe that government is the omnipotent arbiter of conflicting economic forces. This positioning of government for purposes of interdiction or inclusion particularly applies to the seemingly always divergent elements that constitute the variant complexities of capital, labor, and their (lobbyist) influences.

(C) Innately, governments are corrupt no matter the style, type, or format; this includes all government, past and present. It is not possible to govern without committing material mistakes. History has proven over and over again that government, if not restricted by draconian-like monitoring by its citizens instead of its politicians, will step-by-step or much faster, erode personal freedom and liberty in favor of the illusive common good. Government is designed to grow while restricting individual liberty.

(LP) The progressives of today integrally adhere to the suggestion that labor is incorruptible; that only corporations possess the entrails of ominous possibility. Historical documentation proves otherwise; no matter, the progressives persist in their instinctive comradeship with labor unions.

(C) Bobby Kennedy certainly did not believe that unions were incorruptible. Evidence does in fact demonstrate that a number of unions are simply a business entity (another corporation) that acts as a well-paid intermediary between management and labor. Certainly no one in the real world of push and shove could believe that unions have any more or less scruple than any other business. Surely unions, in step with enterprise, believe in lobbying their congressional representative for beneficial particulars and circumstance. Clearly unions spent millions upon millions of dollars for their candidate, Mr. Obama; in turn they expect President Obama to deliver beneficial goodies for services and cash dutifully rendered.

(LP) They believe that a policy of  “in the interest of the common good” (as defined by the government) is senior to the words within the Declaration of Independence: That we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

They believe that “fair” and “equal” means wealth distribution; they administrate their ideal of fair and equal by progressive taxation, imposing discretionary fees and coercive regulatory action. The lasting result for these progressives and their one-sided definitional intrusion into private equity and entity will be the leveling of the wealthy and the poor into economic, societal common-denomination sameness; a heaven on earth approach to governess.

(C) The preamble to the US Constitution captures the spirit of the Declaration of Independence — note the emphasis on Liberty. We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The progressive movement of 1900-1913 created the concept of individual federal income tax. The power to tax is one half of the power anointed to government; the other half is the power to distribute. The power to distribute is in effect the enabler of federal discretion and discrimination. It is also a direct abatement of state’s rights and privileges.

Today’s progressives want to create a number of entitlements labeled under the banner of rights: the right to a free education, to universal health coverage, a right to immigrate free of lawful compliance, the right to undo a lawful mortgage contract, the right to join a union whether one wants to or not, and for those who happen to have more, they have the right to directly support those who happen to have less.

What happened to liberty?

I suppose the liberal progressives believe that only government can aid and assist the disadvantaged, the oppressed, the poor, the discriminated, the undereducated, the underfunded, the lazy, and the fraudsters. Well, why are the most ardent liberal progressives so damn rich? They don’t need all that money… why don’t they spread their wealth? Why do they need to spread mine? Obama believes $500,000 a year is the top tier on richness. Why doesn’t he impose that on his rich liberal buddies? Shouldn’t they lead by example?

I am befuddled…