Authored by William Robert Barber

America is a nation of laws. The foundation of these laws is integrated in the constitution; included — but not replacing, and always subordinate to Supreme Court review — are the historical precedents of judicial resolutions. With more than just a few exceptions, the three branches of this government have worked within the original separation of powers thesis incorporated within the constitutional system of checks and balances. The exceptions to original constitutional intent, though concerning, did not lastingly spike the power of one branch over the other. That is until the administrations of Wilson, both Roosevelt’s, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush the younger, and now Obama. In other words, for the greater part of this country’s recent history, the constitution of original form has been successfully assaulted and vectored to other than original interpretations.

Per constitutional amendments, legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders, politicians have drastically changed not only the face of constitutional interpretation but substantively reconfigured the meaningfulness of the original ten amendments. I do understand the counter party reference to the idea of adaptation to new and unfolding events. That these new and unfolding events necessitate the need for change… yes, I got that message. My contention is that though change is a relevant factor of consideration, the process of initiating such change cannot be trusted. Hence, any change from the original must be subject to forces greater than trusting in congressional legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders.

Although the Obama administration has, by means legislatively perverse (I speak of the recent healthcare initiative that is now law wherein the process called “reconciliation” was the means for the federal government to capture a significant portion of the nation’s economy), simply taken advantage of a legislative means that surely was not within the original constitutional intent, it matters little that the intent of this particular process was created for a different purpose. What matters is that the legislative body made this change from original constitutional intent. The consequence of that change, like so many other legislative enactments, did not anticipate the unintentional; nevertheless, the result worked counter to the interest of the populous and the original intent of the constitution.

Attitudes and mores change. These changes affect societal customs as well as the mind-set of individuals. This into perpetuity of constant transformation (of attitudes and mores) has a direct and effectual influence on the particulars of political systems, politicians, and politics in general.

Immanuel Kant contemplated a behavioral norm postulating that the beginning evolves to the exactness of its end: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and thesis.

For Kant, change is a constant; nonetheless, change seems to identify itself more as a circle than a straight line. In the dictum of Kant, it does not matter: if the line is discerned at the moment of measure, to be vertical or horizontal, the persistence of persuasion is for the line to bend back to its original thesis.

Subsequently, even if Kant’s theory was missing the exactness of truism, one must concede. A societal change of attitude and mores influences individual thought. Such change, much like style within the world of fashion, will triumph over substance and effectually change the original thesis. This factual of human behavior, though a normative inconsequential for fashion, is, as noted in the Obama healthcare process of reconciliation, an excellent example of legislative perversion.

The constitution was designed around the notions that power is an omnipotent elixir; that eventually all politicians and governmental pieces and parts, in the perception of self-service, will yield honesty, integrity, honor, even good sense to its overwhelming dominance. Conclusively, power and the powerful cannot ever be trusted. Thus the constitution, a document that purposefully limits power by dividing the federal government via a system of checks and balances, should never be altered by any process other than either a constitutional convention or the process provided for adding or deleting an amendment.

My presumption is that in the near term, conservative thought will not attain a veto proof majority. Thus the reality of convening a constitutional convention is small, tiny, infinitesimal, well, near impossible; but, maybe we conservatives can abate the perversion of the constitution’s original intent by electing more of like-same ideology. Maybe?


Authored by William Robert Barber

The wise and all-knowing, the elitists of academia and affairs of state, the ones that dwell within a self-created dimension, a sublimity that stands apart from the every-day of reality, they engender the political principles of populism while actively debasing the meaningfulness of individual liberty and freedom. Plato’s government of perfection exampled by Marcus Aurelius would have hardily endorsed this Obama brand of liberal progressivism.

There is a battle cry. An almost vengeful emotion is emitting and forming into a gage or challenge. An election is on the horizon. A political measure of tolerance and acceptance of Obama policies is being offered to the electorate. The Democrats are scrambling to capture the hearts and minds of their fellow Americans — they wish for them to turn to the political left while the Republicans want the voters to turn to the conservative right.

The unions want more power and influence for such enrichment of power eliminates the need to compete for the workers’ fidelity within the marketplace of competitive ideas and options. The unions must resort to state induced statutory compulsion in order to survive; they must eliminate the righteousness of private business; hence capitalism as known in America’s tradition of knowing must be uprooted and replaced by a union favorable alternate.

Then, of course, there is Chris Mathews. He is an excellent exemplar of a media liberal who, by means intuitive and uncanny, can read the mind of conservative thought; he is entertainingly insightful. He is a pundit that deciphers the truth of any political matter without the need for source or evidentiary documentation. A truly remarkable Sunday morning feat.

The news media has become the entertainment media wherein script is provided hour-by-hour. In fact, the content is so voluminous and variant, the editor establishes the contextual personality of the network. The pretty faces and eloquent voices are just programmed talking-heads that smile and frown on queue. After all the elected with their compatriots, the attorneys have purposefully entangled the operations of governing into an ambiguous enigma. Therefore the media have taken on the persona of the one true analyst, jury of first cause and judge of lasting result.

Withstanding collateral influences, I do believe that this upcoming November election is the formative basis of this country’s political future. If the Democrats are not soundly defeated, conservative thought will not prevail and a synthesis of liberal progressivism will dominate politics in America. This upcoming election is the Obama trial by fire. If he should survive, conservative political ideology will be taught in academia as a mere reference to a once governing ideology of present abandonment. The essence of American exceptionalism will (to steal a materially edited phrase from the Lincoln delivered, Gettysburg address) “perish from this earth.”

As the last hundred years bear witness, liberal progressive politicians are not – despite their populous credo to the contrary – the political panacea for the poor and downtrodden. Their only effectiveness is to enlarge and ingratiate the Byzantine networks of layered bureaucracies. These progressives have turned government into a competing enterprise of unionized employees that for the most part is overpaid and underworked. The time has come to turn decidedly to the political right and throw the bums out of office!


Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democrats are desperately trying to put the evidentiary round into the politically advantageous square. For these liberal progressives, their much touted theoretical and conceptive principles of “change we can believe in” have, with a deliberately sounding smack, run into the tactical reality of actual governing.

Withstanding the excessive taxpayer borrowing prompted and enacted by the Bush government, this nation, under the Obama government, is scheduled to spend a trillion and half more than it receives. This Obama deficit however is traversing through the highways and byways of an economy with high unemployment and low tax harvesting. The alternative to the Obama plan of purposeful excessive spending as an economic cure is to cut spending, lower taxes, extend the Bush tax cut, eliminate regulatory overreach, and enable small business growth. Of course that conservative economic alternative to the Obama economic scheme is an ideological atheism to the liberal progressives. Their response to such a proposal would be that even if such an alternative worked, it should not be implemented because it is fundamentally unfair. They would elaborate that the unfairness rests with working families and union members, and benefit the rich over the poor — naturally in their world of the theoretical and conceptive, the rhetorical claim of unfairness is sufficient proof, thereby eliminating the time consuming madness of further investigative debate.

This great rich nation of ours creates a revenue cause for over a trillion dollars in taxes, fees, penalties, and other etcetera contrivances; nevertheless, congress whether flying the red or blue flag, continues to overspend. Clearly, congress has developed an uncontrollable spending habit and intervention by the American people is required.

Our government representatives cannot agree on a solution for Medicare and Social Security but they did vote in another entitlement with ObamaCare. Does any of that make sense at all? It isn’t as if the current and projected federal deficit is the only financial negative facing this country. All of the federal entitlement programs are broke or going broke. Federal, state, and private pensions are seriously underfunded. Then of course, there is all that oil in the Gulf.

The thesis of big government is under fire because it is not able to bridge the distance from promise to result. The promise, as more and more Americans comprehend, was no more than a ruse to retain or attain elected office. The problems have added up and the American people will not be hustled by any emptier campaign promises.

Now I am really going to stretch one’s imagination and suggest that the problem is 80% solved by passing a constitutional amendment for term limits. No more than two terms in any one office is the limit.

Within the grand scheme of political history, the many is lead by the few. The few, with even fewer exceptions, fight to remain in office. For serving politicians to join the ranks of the many after the taste, feel, and smell of power is (for the politicians) worse than going from first class to coach. The prestige of being in power is so intoxicating that relinquishing its ambiance of gravitas for the wholly and often boring mundane, reeks of distasteful acceptability.

Therefore, the career politician must be forced out of power; he or she will never withdraw on his or her own volition. The case for term limits if solely determined as an anti-corruption measure is sensible. Nevertheless, no matter how effectual the elected, it is an imperative of an honestly managed government to regularly turn over its elected. Time in office only engenders the means, negatively influences the legislative culture, and affords the opportunity for institutional corruption.

Of course, I wish we could devise a distribution system to eliminate global hunger…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Looks like the Obama inner circle of all powerful insiders havs slipped, stumbled, and fallen into a puddle of Chicago-style political muck. This time, the smartest of the smart have created a wholesomely negative issue, solely on their daft contrivance. Surely, given a few more days, the chief of staff, a sitting governor, a former president, and the presidential press secretary can huddle and blame this on Bush.

In spite of all the editorial dancing by enterprising novelist within and outside of the administration, the truth has raised its head above the chaos of politicking — and is biting into the Obama brand. Despite the solidly delivered Obama election pledge of a transparent above the political fray government, politics as usual have identified themselves within the Obama camp. Once again a principal politician feigned hopefulness when in pre-election mode — but delivered politics as usual in practice.

A citizen might call this an excellent example of fraudulent inducement. But then of course the media, the president’s lawyer, notable politicians, an array of appointed and once appointed would discount the charge of fraudulent inducement as “simply politics as usual”.

Of course the president has been under pressure. The North Koreans’ have decided to redefine their sea borders and in order to establish this new sector of sovereignty, their leadership decided to sink a South Korean vessel, killing 46 people. Naturally, Secretary Clinton voiced a complaint. She clearly was upset with the North; and as a consequence she articulated a no-nonsense response to Kim Jong Il’s aggression, which was globally broadcast and convincingly implied the cold sternness of Obama disappointment in the North Korean hostile action. This state department declaration was coupled to the notion that this act of violence could not go unattended. Sarcastically, that of course sent shivers down the spine of the martially aggressive North Koreans and certainly satisfied the concerns of the 46 South Korean families who had just lost loved-ones. This half-hearted, cowardly approach to a clear military provocation demonstrated the level of US resolve for the Chinese and focused the Japanese on the real-time risk of relying on America’s willingness to protect Japan.

For all intensive purposes, Iran will soon add the atomic bomb to its arsenal of weapons. The attaining of this weaponry will validate Iran within the geo-political sector. It will establish Iran as the premier terrorist support nation and bond Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon into the Syria-Iran axis. As a collateral benefit to the madness of Iranian foreign policy, a policy that fits in perfectly with the Obama-Clinton ineptness and mind boggling disregard of the palpable, Obama offers weak disputatious of how the world should be. The discernable of what is offered amongst the midst of international diplomacy is the Obama policy of demonstrating American weakness at every opportunity. How many times does this nation state turn the other check and say (per TelePrompTer) “do it to me again, please”? This Obama-Clinton doctrine isolates Israel even more, negating even the fanciness of peacefulness.

But then, quite possibly, I might be too harsh. The president or ‘the enlightened one’ demands only one particular: that all nations, regardless of their varied and splintered Socio-religious-economic-political variables, simply inhale his elixir of Obama persuasion. If only these parts and pieces would adhere to the truth… the light and the way of Obama belief that the world will be nuclear free, Palestinians will gleefully enjoin with Israelites, Korea will unite, poverty will be stricken by the cheerfully given sharing of wealth, green energy will replace fossil, and Mexicans will stay in Mexico.

Offering the endorsement of a far flung network of liberal progressive intelligentsia, Obama is mystified as to the why-fore of any hesitation by his counter parties. After all, the UN stands at the ready — and according to Obama this is the forum for multilateral agreement. Additionally, he, the leader of the Western alliance, has personally pledged the tangible fact that George W is no longer president; plus he has assured the world that the US is no longer the cowboy unilateralist. Noticeably, the Russian and Chinese love the Obama Doctrine of “let’s all get along” by leading his department of state by the noose, whiles every now and then kicking him in his rear.

Well, there are these midterm elections…