Authored by William Robert Barber

Since the founding and constant (so it seems) re-establishing of this nation’s principles of political origin, the reliance of/on constitutional fidelity has always been tied to an actively interested citizenry. Nevertheless, from the very beginning only a portion of the population actively participates in the political process. If left to its own devises, government, as wet is to water, will by asexual copulations corrupt the ethos of lawful intent and the spirit of moral righteousness. Enabling its own regard, the politicians that govern will choose power over fidelity to original purpose.

When at the discretion of the proper authorities federal and state law is not enforced, or when a statutory law is violated and the media, administration, and politicians minimize its effect by saying that it is done all the time, politics as usual, this nation is in deep dodo.

When I look about, seeking an answer to the question of why citizens do not engage and declare, I surmise that possibly in the interest of facilitating peacefulness, a stress-free lifestyle, or to go with the flow, apathy is the accomplished preference of concern. The thinking here (so it seems) is not to burden oneself with over-thinking. Or, even better, as little thinking as possible is the derigueur of Zen-like disengagement. For minimalists, the protective shroud of ignorance is more than simply an excuse…it is a way of life. The citizens of common means (which the majority of citizens are) have abandoned the righteousness of moral indignation in favor of a variety of submissions. These submissions to a higher secular authority normally take the form of adherence to a governmental directive that is directly or indirectly applied. In other words, the common reasoning of the average citizen to any societal, cultural, or otherwise problem of our nation state is to seek the answer, or point the finger to government for the solution.

There is a psychological comfort in the mythology of believing that a higher secular authority is the answer to the metrics of problem solving. In unreal terms it actually matters little if this belief is truthful or not; the value to the believer is in the perception that government will find the solution. The basis for the believer’s positive perception that government is the super-hero is not founded on logic or deductive evidence; indeed, such analysis is not required. The only real requirement is faith. Remembering that faith is never hampered by insufficient facts. Nor is faith measured by a requirement for tangible results. Faith for the faithful will never debase in value because of the remiss of objectiveness; essentially, faith can subsists without reason, rational, or the clarification inherent in a process of deductive logic.

This nation’s financial success since WWII has prompted the common into an attitude of general permissiveness; the individual citizen has been seduced by governmental entitlements and without a doubt, the government gains strength of will every time a citizen, via the law of the land, takes another dime of a fellow citizen’s earnings. The once traditional American indulgence of prudence, sensibility, and personal discipline has been replaced by a citizen induced into a mentality of self-indulgence, wrong-headed delusion, and a woe-me state of mind.

Liberal progressives have steadfastly inflicted their political philosophy and ideals upon the nation’s constituents for over a hundred years. They have had a detrimental effect upon the spirit and ideal of American existentialism. Unless Obama’s democrats are soundly defeated in the next election, these socialists will damage every aspect of our American identification… the replacement will be as Europeans.


Authored by William Robert Barber

From about the turn of the 1900’s we Americans have taken upon ourselves to expend our blood and treasury in Cuba, Nicaragua, the Philippines, China, the Mexican border skirmishes, France, and Belgium. Now, fast-forward another twenty years and into the present to include Germany, Italy, North Africa, Korea, the Pacific islands, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other distant lands that five minutes of research could verify. Thousands upon thousands of Americans have died directly from battle wounds and thousands more from disease, shock, sorrow, and starvation as a consequence of their engagement.

I do believe that the two World Wars not only killed, murdered, and maimed millions of humans. But in fact, the devastation inflicted upon humankind by their fellow humans was/is to a large part caused by the naive, imprudent foreign policy, exercised by this nation’s leadership. The list of such naïve and imprudent policies initiated by former American presidents consists of certainly more than the two noted below.

However, Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt are perfect leadership models of this nation’s credulously unwise policies.

Wilson was an international idealist. A liberal progressive leader, serving as president before and during World War One. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a liberal progressive who grew to favor an oligarchic-socialist form of governing, he too was also president prior to and during the last World War.

Both leaders utilized the reason of present danger and economic emergency to dramatically enlarge the qualitative size of government power. Interestingly, in proportion to the enhancement of government in general, specifically, so grew the power of the executive branch. Irrespective of the growth of their domestic and international power, both of these leaders, Wilson as one of the victors of The Great War allowed the United States to be bullied and ostracized by his wartime allies. The other, with the atom bomb exclusively within his arsenal, the largest American Army ever station and at the ready in Europe, withstanding, Roosevelt does not protect the Europeans from Stalin. As if stymied, unable to comprehend the obvious and connect the dots. Ignoring the advice of Churchill, to the detriment of a democratic Europe, Roosevelt’s naive policies worked in favor of Soviet dominance; when challenged by a totalitarian regime, this American president faltered and failed to secure the peace. Roosevelt’s inaction serviced the Soviet Union as if the west was a Stalinist ally. In the grand game between a totalitarian dictatorship and a democratically elected republic, the good guys suffered an ignominious defeat. Roosevelt, the leader of the free world, ceded his Queen for fear of the opposition’s many pawns.

The Traité de Paix de Versailles and the Potsdamer Konferenz set the stage for future wars by creating (or allowing to be created) issues, concerns, and situations that preempted the next violent engagement. Versailles created draconian reparations upon Germany’s citizens; Potsdam ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin’s Russia. And if that was not enough, idiocy western leadership agreed on a divided Korea.

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was elected president. In 1913, progressive income tax was legislated with the Revenue Act. This one law in short order would empower the federal government beyond the scope of the founder’s intent; this law debilitated state’s rights from its origin; this one law moved America from a republic to a government of and by federal mandate. This law was preceded and post-ceded by the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission, Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Federal Farm Loan Act. This progressive president, with the enabling of a Democratic congress, was the original “change you can believe in”… Woodrow Wilson was the presidential precursor to Barrack Obama.

He narrowly won the reelection in 1916 with the promise of keeping America out of “that fracas” in Europe. Of course that lasted until Germany sank the ‘Lusitania’, and by 1917 American soldiers and marines were in France. Wilson proceeded to form the War Industries Board, promoted labor unions, took over railroads, and enacted the Lever Act. This Lever fellow was an elected representative, of course a Democrat, who, at the prodding of President Wilson, decided it would be a very good idea to control food and fuel — hence the Lever Act. Sounds familiar? This legislation empowered a “Food Administrator” to oversee the working of this new government agency. The act also banned the use of “distilled spirits” from any produce that was used for food — the agency even tried to set the price of wheat. I trust one can visualize the resemblance between the Wilson administration and Obama’s.

Right after the First World War, President Wilson’s vision to guarantee the prophesy of “war to end all wars,” was to engage the United States in a global community of nations, an entity named The League of Nations. Although congress rejected the membership, President Wilson won a Nobel Peace Prize for his outline of “Fourteen Points”, a formula to entice Germany’s surrender while blueprinting a world order after the war. Wilson, as with Obama, visualized the world as they wished it to be; they both fail(ed) to see the world for what it truly is.

Not unlike President Obama, President Wilson’s experience was either public service or academia; he lacked the understanding of a world wherein persuasion was not a matter of finding a podium to exercise his rhetorical sensibilities. He just could not grasp that persuasion in the world of nation states is a matter of martial power. Either the direct use of such power or the indirect threat of power; this was the world of England, France, and Italy, his allied partners. In the finality, Wilson’s foreign policy concepts died an ignominious death; retributions ruled the Treaty of Versailles and while still looking for the cheese, the spring on the mousetrap was set; the next war would be even more brutal than the last.

Wilson, Roosevelt, and Obama all attended Harvard; none of them ever ran a private enterprise. Interestingly, they all shared the oneness of socialistic economic principles, large governments, and the belief that they could, by the power of their intellect or the coercive power of government, bend spoons in midair. And if they failed at that — surely they could bend any person or institution to their will.

Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1932 and passed away April 1945, in office. When he died away, thousand wept. He had been president longer than anyone. Indeed, so long that after his death congress passed an amendment to the constitution prohibiting a president’s term of office past two terms.

This is the man that took the nation off of the gold standard, favored deficit financing, unprecedented concessions to labor, created Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, and most outstanding, after his reign government could legally regulate the economy. We have all heard of his attempt to stack the Supreme Court and the invalidation of a few of his government’s programs.

Roosevelt is credited by many as saving the American people from the ravages of The Great Depression; of course there are those who feel FDR’s economic policies enabled the depression instead of abating its effect. But all will agree that he was a strong wartime leader. Of course this is also the president that detained Japanese Americans in internment camps for the duration of the war, deprived them of their property, liberty, and citizenry rights. This president was a liberal-progressive with strong socialist-like inclinations; he reminds me of President Obama’s political, economic, and social preferences.

I do believe that because this nation’s leadership decided to judge worldly events through the distortion of a liberal progressive’s naïve predeterminations, the continuum of violent conflict was and is a constant liability. Note that when this nation was confronted by a declaration of emergency, whether it is formed by domestic or foreign influence, government is enlarged and power-enriched to the few. Fear has been the wherewithal of liberal progressives to gain power and extend their ideological agenda.

In every instance of rule by an emergency agenda, personal liberty and individual freedom is being abated.

When will we Americans ever understand that weakness begets aggression? That peace is not a reasonable foreign policy goal? That the preservation of the ‘American Exception’ is in fact an intrinsic necessity, a value of worldwide priority? America cannot continue to win the war and lose the peace. The bona-fide relationship between the world’s nation states is founded on self-interest and without physical reality, omnipotent American power, Russia and China will fill the vacuum. The cost for liberty and freedom is always materialized into blood and gold; the fare is prohibitive. Leadership must reconcile the difference between the worlds as we wish it to be and as it truly is. This is no place for idealistic fantasies…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Media and constituency! Do you not notice the obvious? Congress is legislating for political, ideological, and self-serving purpose…

As I have written in earlier blog’s: There has never been a corruption-free government, nor will there ever be such a governing body. Therefore, what constituents ought to require of government’s leadership, is a statutory definitive of governmental transparency and be adamant about its ubiquitous implementation. This measure should be joined with a principled, rigid adherence to the letter and spirit of checks and balances; and lastly, constituents as well as the media should insist on the ethics and morals of Caesar’s wife upon the elected, appointed, and staffed. Of course the issue with my preceding sentences is that, in the majority, the veracity of the particular government encumbered upon a nation reflects directly on the righteous qualities of its constituents. In simple terms, as stated by some sage years ago, we always get the government we deserve.

It stands to reason that the larger the size of government, the greater its power. Power enhances the opportunity for corruptive principles and practices to take seed and entangle. Government rendered to its own devises will run amok with copious bureaucracies; it will create an irresolute system of statutory ambiguity, treacherous bureaucrats, and regulators that pay more attention to political whims than independent judgment. A government cannot seem to function without the endorsement — indeed the fraternally incestuous relationship with, of, and for attorneys. At every opportunity, government will ask for more money — never for less.

The set-in-stone answer of government’s leaders to the task of governing, often at the price of exclusion or the forfeit of one segment, class, or demographic from the other, is to create entitlements. These entitlements are brazenly issued to favorites of government blessings. Favoritism is the utility of a corruptive government. The voters sell their vote to the candidate that promises them the most bang and favor for their vote. Obama promised those that pay no federal individual income taxes cash — so the majority of this segment voted for Obama. Of course favoritism has been used by both of our political parties to further their specific agenda. When the white team is in power, they, with fanfare, and super human purpose, make up for the favorites extended by the red team; as President Obama pointed out in many of his public remarks, to paraphrase, it is time that those wealthy Americans, you know the ones that benefited during the Bush presidency, pay the fiddler.

On one side of a politician’s mouth they speak of bipartisanism, on the other side of the same mouth they speak of political pay-back. Favoritism follows the power broker that bandies available favors extended from one administration to the other. Because of the majority control of congress by democrats, bipartisanism was sacrificed in favor of brute means; the tactic of any and all was employed by the Obama majority to satisfy their interpretive of social righteousness.

The American people need to end this bloated nonsense; we the people must stand up and deliver individual liberty; we must end this Obama drift toward socialism and the crony self-dealing of liberal progressives.


Authored by William Robert Barber

What has happened to our government? Is it that congress, pushed, pulled, and prodded by Liberal Progressives over the last hundred or so years, has successfully changed the ethos of American thought? Was the impact of FDR’s successful socialistic agenda far greater than realized? Has Jimmy Carter’s naiveté particularly on foreign policy been effectuating such fearfulness within this nation state that we refuse to accept our reality? And because of our inability to address Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah with military force, we pick a silly fight with Israel? Or is it that Americans have come to realize that America would be — and indeed is — a better place because the enlightened progressives have reshaped and remolded American society? That this new era of Americans has finally submitted to ‘the way of Obama’ and the progressives’ political ideal?

The liberal progressives of today have persistently proffered an America where a communalist definitive of social justice is the acceptance. The progressives believe public funded entitlements are an obligatory normative. They also enthusiastically endorse a tax policy that in practice, for those paying into it, is discriminative and egregious. A tax policy that in its finality, if successful, penalizes the risk takers for the privilege of taking the risk; and if the risk taker loses its cash, tough… Unless the entity in question is a “too big to fail” or government enterprise such as Fannie or Freddie. Progressives espouse the redistribution of wealth, coupled with a perverse interpretive of newly founded individual rights, such as healthcare, as an ipso facto.

The leadership of the liberal progressives has tried to eliminate existentialism as the philosophical raison d’être of American distinction. They want Americans to submit to a socialistically inclined republic wherein the wise does all the thinking for the less than wisest. In their sense of perfect, the common man’s fate is rendered to the providence of government; a government that offers life’s essentials to all, regardless of status or intelligence quotient. In other words, working is no longer required.

A progressive’s utopia is a land whose population is equal in all material measurement. A land of uncanny understanding, civil tolerance, functional equality; a land where such is within one’s grasp if only one would submit to the promise and providence of government sagacious. The American people (or at least a significant number of Americans) actually believe it is proper, even preferred, to take money fairly earned by one — utilizing the government as the intermediary — and give that money to another. The other is not required to be an American citizen. The other can be a country, a worthy or not so worthy cause. This give-away of taxpayers’ dollars can also take the form of arms, food, drugs, the International Monetary Funds, the United Nations, or even a variant of services such as abortions — all supported by US currency.

As expected, for the life of me, I do not understand the thinking of these liberal progressives; it is beyond my cognitive to submit to their promise of something or another — well, it is either a something or it is another. I do not understand the Obama-Holder-Pelosi-Reid message, other than it is utter nonsense.

As I have conservative, I have liberal-progressive associates; some of my conservative acquaintances think of me as too conservative and certainly all of my liberal-progressive comrades think of me as outlandishly right wing… I do not believe I could ever generate enough consensus to fill anything larger than a phone booth; nevertheless, I prod along. I do so by putting one foot in front of the other, presumably just as those who think quite differently; admittedly however, I am sometimes a bit more frustrated than at other times over the present Obama governing process. But then I still have November to reconcile my current angst with the new leaning conservative congress.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The United States Government of Obama requires every American to prove that they have purchased health insurance; but to ask an immigrant, in compliance with federal law, for documented proof of legality is racist. This hypocrisy, this emblematic descriptive of contrariness, is beyond understanding.

The President of the United States is suggesting, implying, describing, and calling the newly passed Arizona ‘immigration law’ a disuniting of American’s commonality. I do not believe that speaking out against the Arizona Law is Obama’s real intent; in fact, I believe he is calling out his constituency to engage and save him and his political party from the forthcoming electoral debacle. This consummate politician is campaigning at all times.

Liberal progressives and their media bedfellows charge that the Arizona law results in blatant racial profiling and as such equates into an unavoidable and despicable sum of draconian discrimination against people of Spanish surnames. In keeping with that thought, the progressives also believe that implementation of the law requires the policing of all people of Mexican decent and that such marshalling of forces run counter to the base instincts of humanism and the American way of life.

Now, noting that all of these emotionally charged declaratives have no basis of truism; that there is heretofore no evidence to support their accusations… but such does not abate the Liberal Progressives from propagating their lies.

In the interest of creating the façade of rightfulness, pundits of the left state quite affirmatively that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional; of course, no such degree has been adjudicated. Often I forget that these Democrats are harbingers, soothsayers — as well as politicians.

To Obama and his minions the labeling of racist is an obligatory charge toward any person or entity that refuses to drink the Obama additive. However, I do recall these guys and gals being flexible, creative, and genuinely disingenuous. Therefore, when the charge by the lefties is a catchall descriptive void of specifics, (obviously because there is no evidence) then the accusers go to Plan B, declaring that the people of Arizona lack humanistic values.

Of course there is always the shortcut facilitated by the socialist, Marxist, Liberal progressive sagacity of deductive sensibility: Wherein they, (those that know all things material and relevant) the ‘Followers of Obama’, simply state that the Arizona Law is counter to the American way of life. Satisfied with that explanation, the followers move on to Tea Partiers.

Each one of the elected and appointed pledged to uphold the federal constitution and the laws of this land. When varied jurisdictions, cities, states, feds, and the employees therein pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to disregard, the nation is at risk of legalist mayhem and civil chaos. The result is a discombobulating of intrinsic American principles. Now marry such with an unsustainable federal debt, a ridiculously ambiguous canard representing itself as the federal tax code, a bloated federal, state, and city bureaucracy, a mounting shortfall of pension funds, two wars, half of the working citizens paying no federal individual income tax, global competition for trade and power, and a socialist in the White House, this nation of ours is in dire need for an electoral revolution.

Oh, and one more thing, the immigration problem in the United States is being caused by Mexicans. These people for the most part speak Spanish, have black hair, brown skin, and will do anything to leave Mexico. They are also hard working, decent, and honest; nevertheless, they are here illegally and need to comply with US Law. Complicit with the non compliant Mexican immigrant is our gutless Congressperson who does not have the intestinal fortitude to respond to a national emergency.

PS: The terrorist who are hell bent on killing us Americans are Islamic by religion and Muslim by culture; they need to be preemptively eliminated as a material threat to our citizens.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Tax credits for small businesses… hmm, sounds like a positive; of course the benefits of such credits apply only to those small businesses that pay taxes on a percentage of their profits. However, the overwhelming majorities of small businesses do not make a profit vis-à-vis their business; instead, adhering to the standard of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), most of these small businesses do not make a profit. Their gross profits are expressed as deduction under the line item “cost of business”. Small business owners report and pay taxes on their federal, and (where applicable) state, city, and county personal income statement. No tax credits allowed…

Certainly, there is a minority of small businesses that actually report profits. The Obama administration is offering — under certain restrictions, terms, and conditions — tax credits for these businesses. How very nice: the companies that need no tax deduction because they actually are profitable have a shot at receiving some tax credits. And here I thought the object of the tax code in America was founded on a sham of sensibility and fairness.

By far the largest employer in America is the small business owner; he or she must risk capital and variant resources in order to create an entrepreneurial opportunity. Most of these entrepreneurs fail. Suffering the loss of capital as well as resource, they lost their shot at good fortune. A few, very few, beat the odds by establishing a profitable business and thrive. Naturally, whether it can do so over a measured period of time, is another question of risk.

Business in the best of times is tough; in the worst of times it is almost impossible to harvest a living wage, much less demonstrate profitability. If the dynamics of entrepreneurial engagement was not challenging enough, the competition of much larger adversaries are enough to bury the most tenacious of risk takers. Big business has all the capital and resource advantages over small business and for the most part benefits from the unflinching support of governments. This is an economic factual, a truism, a conundrum for the small business advocates. If one considers that it is small business that sustains the overwhelming number of the employed, one would presume that government would acquiesce directly to the needs.

One would think that government would understand and directly aid and assist small businesses by significantly reducing their tax encumbrances, administrative & regulatory burden, and leave this dynamic segment of America alone. But it just can’t seem to do the simple and obvious; instead, government dances around the required with nonsensical rhetoric about tax credits and promises of loosening up bank lending standards. In other words, this current government’s ideas and action solutions, like the many that preceded it, just get in the way…

The Obamas of the world cry out that insurance companies, health service entities, and oil/gasoline distributors are making excessive profits. Of course no politicians can define excessive profits; besides, does it not follow that excessive profits must mean excessive taxes?

A little less than half of the taxpaying public pays no individual federal income taxes; 1% suffers the single largest percentage of our nation’s individual income taxes… How’s this for fairness?

From time to time I do wonder why we have Ivy League institutions. Considering the legislation passed by congresses over these many years since 1789 and considering the incompetence of regulators within the SEC, and the stupidity of financially enhancing Freddie and Fannie’s authority so to fulfill compliance with HUD directives, why did all these politicians attend Harvard, Princeton, or Yale?

Well, then there is the situation in Arizona. Imagine the audacity of a state acting because the federal government will not? When the federal government picks and chooses which laws to enforce, there is definitely going to be friction and in this particular, the willful discombobulating of facts. The coupling of the two federal government perversions of what is lawful will always result in a dysfunction of our system of governess. Either change the law or enforce it; anything other then applying one or the other will abate lawfulness.