Authored by William Robert Barber

There was a time when humans were exclusively hunters of animals and gatherers of other living things. They hunted and ate what they killed. These humans were wholly and totally cognizant of their role as predator. Because life and living was upfront, in one’s face, and genuine, early on they recognized that their most lethal enemy was their fellowman. Over time the hunter-gatherer understood the baneful character and infinite resources of their most fearsome enemy. In the interest of protection they advantaged geography, built walls, created armed forces, and developed weapons; but in the end they learned that parity and defense alone was insufficient. Evidence proved that nothing less than corporal, intellectual, and technological dominance would guarantee their survival.

In the natural order of living things survival is dependent on killing and eating other living things. Often we moderns forget that with the exception of hunting, trapping, scavenging, and eating the victim piece-by-bloody-piece, the human animal is no different than its cousins of the wild. Because we purchase our food from the local grocery store prepackaged and manufactured does not mean we humans do not kill and slaughter for consumption. We humans, in many material ways, have not evolved so very far from our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors.

Nevertheless, the modern mother, purchasing for her family, is not considered a hunter. Instead, her shopping is considered a civilized synthesis of the natural order; as such, I believe this fabrication or juxtapose of blood and guts has dulled and distorted reality. I think that this synthesis of the natural order has successfully inserted itself to a measurable degree into the mind set of a particular portion of Americans. As if influenced by some high-intensity software, a program of naivety with an automatic upgrade of exaggerated hopefulness has, for a certain portion of Americans, captured their sensibility and rendered it useless.

There is a sizeable segment of politicians, social and academic elites who live in a self-created world of ideologically inspired wistfulness. For the most part, their world is designed to withstand a perpetual siege; these elites insist on the veracity of their truth, they require adherence and reject defiance. They have developed a profound insistence, regardless of the consequences, on the righteousness of worldwide moral equanimity. They outright deny conflicting evidence. Their philosophy of convenience is founded on a platform of gullible defiance; their standard is a Machiavellian approach to persuasion wherein consensus of and by the people is not required.

The followers of this ideologically inspired wistfulness include this nation’s president and congressional leadership. Their beliefs have been documented by their behavior in both, domestic and foreign policies, legislation, and in many, many, speeches.

Obviously, the infectious virus of their ideologically inspired wistfulness has affected their hearing and sight. Insisting that their policies are working in the interest of their original design, they see no conflict to their opinion and hear no complaints — they are disabled. Lost within their ideology, they cannot find the cause, much less the means, to address their electorate’s anxiety of concern.

They are Democrats…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The constituents of this nation of ours are crying out for congressional action regarding illegal immigration and border security. Therefore, in an effort to relieve congress of a duty it will not address, I have decided -by the writing of this entry – to solve the US border/immigration problem with our neighbor to the South. Sound a little hubris? Well, if Vice President Biden, without concerns of accuracy or empirical evidence, bombast and hypothecates his persona of confidence in Obama’s economic policies, it seems fitting that I can unilaterally declare a solution to a heretofore unsolvable socio-economic problem.

What Spanish speaking country benefits financially from its willful albeit illegal exportation of its citizens into the United States?

Well, clearly Mexico, the sovereign state, benefits and obviously, Mexicans benefit — if not, multimillions over these many, many, years wouldn’t have trekked north. The very fact that Mexican citizens, seeking financial surety and all of its derivatives, must leave their home, usually by dangerous and certainly illegal measures, to find such surety is a negative indictment of the Mexican government’s veracity of governing competence.

For a service fee, millions of US Dollars are repatriated by Mexican banks. All of this income flowing into Mexico is prompted solely by the successful illegal export of its citizens into America. This exportation of Mexican citizens is premeditated, willful, contrived, and supported with a wink and a nod by the Mexican government and its private affiliates.

Hence it is not the individual alone that is liable for breaching US immigration law. The government of Mexico is the real culpable indispensable accomplice.

Therefore, for committing a breach of US law, it is the Mexican government in addition to the individual Mexican that is the violator. This ameliorated new approach (of mine) to viewing an old problem, once thoughtfully contemplated reveals itself as axiomatic and truthful. The governing Mexican administrations, both present and past, have been aiding and abetting for years the willful violation of US law. Mexico is the prime offender — and is consequently the first cause of reparation.

Let me be absolutely clear, I am stating, unequivocally, that the Mexican government is directly liable for its citizens’ contravention of US immigration laws.

Ok, well, so what! The “so what” is a strategic realignment not just of culpability but of subsequent judicial recourse. Nevertheless, the United States can offer to Mexico a means to end their participation in breaching US immigration law, or face the consequences of lawful recourse. Interestingly, the elimination of the problem is not only costless but readily implemental.

The USA offers to open its borders by issuing 6-months work permits – with some obvious restrictions – to all able boded Mexicans. The work permits are issued and a fee is charged. Any violations of the covenants by the individual will have a financial penalty, including deportation and permanent exclusion. The secondary guarantor of this transaction is the Mexican government.

The Mexican government permits US firms the right of majority ownership in Mexican domiciled businesses and private property and adopts an equal status for investment in Mexico as the US affords to Mexicans in the United States.

In less than five years, citizens of Mexico will have less cause to live and work in the United States because US firms who now control their own fate will blossom in Mexico. The border will be gleefully overrun by American tourists, businesspersons, and investors.

However, Mexico is now – and has been since its inception – a nation fearful of Yankee dominance. After losing Texas, California, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona to the United States plus being invaded, they certainly have a good cause for such concern.

There will be resistance, but the positive effects will outlast any and all of those against this sensible approach to what I consider to be the inevitable.

In the interest of brevity I have dumbed down my solution to a single initiative; there is so much more to my solution… any questions or requests for more detail, just send me a comment!


Authored by William Robert Barber

Lost in the never-never land of wish-it-was-true, the Obama administration meanders about. Led by Hillary, the leader of team Obama, U.S. foreign policy prods along moving a pawn, positioning a knight, threatening; well, not really threatening, instead they note, almost apologetically, of America’s capability of strategic checkmate sweeps across the chessboard. Now of course Venezuela and North Korea may consider Hillary’s state department threatening. So – just in case – she follows up any statement of policy that could be taken as an offensive remark with an assurance that any strategic checkmate sweep across the chessboard is possible only with UN Security Council agreement.

Obama’s representative, in keeping with the August intellectualism of progressive thought, thrives within the sublimity of contemplative hesitation. From time to time, as if to satisfy an unwritten script and develop the virtues of a heroin, protagonist Hillary feigns an aggressive posture. In reality, in step with Obama, she is disoriented and bewildered by the adversarial temperament of nation states. It is unimaginable to the Obama team that the sensibility of the president’s persuasion – much less his charming charisma – would not be enough to convince the lamb to lay with the lion.

I think they are too deep in theoretical thought to match policy to the ever-changing nuances of real time needs. Their contemplative deliberation requires the enjoinment of the many to judicious study. As a consequence of many opinions the process breeds hesitation and misunderstandings; a kind of puzzled enigma-like bafflement regarding the exactness of the administration’s intent. The resulting sum of the team Obama efforts could lead one to believe that their decision making form is disjointed and circular instead of straightforward and crystal, lacking in decisiveness and confused.

The need of our nation to demonstrate a clear unambiguous position on Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and at the same time by declaration and behavior display unequivocal support for our allies, are obvious to the international community. Instead, team Obama restricts its resources to the virtues of wishing and hoping, begging and pleading.

Iran is determined. North Korea is mad. All the while the United States invests and counters such challenges with the mysticism of Obama inspired persuasion. The nation’s Secretary of State addresses the issues of nuclear proliferation and rogue madness by endless negotiations. This particular Obama/Hillary policy is a filler tactic wherein procrastination is a better explanation of effort than the truth — which is: North Korea has stymied the most powerful nation on earth and Iran snubs this country as if it were a banana republic.

Obama and Hillary view China and Russia as partners of parity and good faith, admitting to the existence of disagreements, but mitigating such disagreements with the assurance that what was lacking (because of Bush’s cowboy arrogance) was tolerance, understanding, the artfulness of listening, and the meaningfulness of genuine cooperation. Conversely, China and Russia view the Obama administration as elites of the bourgeoisie; naive politicians with autocratic inclinations blended with arrogant self-regard who consider themselves Avant Garde and “cool”. An administration whose foreign policy, when disrobed, is nothing more than a kindergarten level approach to international relations; a policy that leads with endorsing the qualities of sharing and ends with a sort of “let’s all get along” western style simpatico.

I do not believe that the Obama/Hillary foreign policy stands any chance of reform or change. They are stuck firstly with an ideological predetermination of reality and secondly with a disabled sensory cognitive. My only comfort resides in the military’s artful persuasion and the response of the American people when team Obama proposes a policy initiative that is way too naive.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Be it civil or criminal, we all understand the meaning and consequence of breaking the law. When one speaks of corruption, normally the word applies to governments, organizations, or some closed loop entity. But not many of us have considered the meaning or consequences of “statutorily compliant corruption” (or SCC) wherein the perpetrator has not violated any civil or criminal statute… nevertheless, an injustice or circumvention of societal concurrence has been committed.

When congress submits its approved annual budget and then spends billions of taxpayers’ monies in off-balance sheet-in-addition-to budget appropriation, is this an overt corruptive act?

When federal immigration laws are selectively enforced, is this not a corruptive manipulation of existing law?

When a politician is elected because of the promise not to raise taxes and then touts legislation that does exactly that — is this betrayal NOT a pure example of SCC?

Barney Frank told us that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and critical to the government’s obligation to insure a parity of fairness. Is it not true that Senator Frank and Dodd, with the aid and assist of the now President Obama, insisted on the veracity of obligation in the concept of government residential subsidy? Additionally, I recall that with purposefulness and premeditation these politicians, along with a majority of Democrats, sang the praises of Fannie and Freddie as they fought off the Bush administration’s efforts to wind down these entities. Clearly, Fannie and Freddie are not now – nor were these entities then – financially sound. It would have been prudent to de-leverage, impair, and rescind the authority and function of these quasi-government entities. Is the conduct of these three senators simply a matter of ignorance? Is it that they were simply too stupid to analyse the going ons? Or were these senators simply garnishing support within their base, not thinking all of the consequences? Did their actions fall within the definition of SCC?

Often enough false pretense is the actual ethos of the act of SCC. The motivations for extending these lies vary in degree and type. However, the disseminations of outright falsehoods seem to have the one motivational commonality: The perceived benefit of political or pecuniary gain. The process of implementing SCC includes a state government’s issuance of bonds without full and transparent disclosure, to the traditional tactics of government and corporate misinformation and disinformation. There seems to be no shame as to the lengths of such corruptive behavior and from time to time there isn’t even a discernable, rational, reasonable aim of the practice. Obviously, in these cases, logic and deductive reasoning are deleted by the lustful passion of ideological inspiration wherein malice is the intent and mischievousness the means.

All of us could, by simply reading the newspaper, easily find other instances of SCC practices within our governing and corporate systems. Our society has become very tolerant of malfeasant behavior; not just from our sports heroes, celebrities, or family members, but, most disconcerting, from our elected and appointed government officials. I am concerned with the ease pundits accept the less than stellar behavior of our elected representatives. Frankly, I am bit perplexed as to the reasoning and readiness of forgiveness for our elected officials ethical shortcoming. Maybe that is because there is no reasoning, but only the expectation of less.

The infection of “statutorily compliant corruption” has penetrated unevenly into the varied demographics of our society. Is it simply about the money? Does power have such sway that one is willing to lose one’s honor over the trivial of fame and cash? Why does one, a graduate of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other such notable institutions believe that skimming close to the line of illegal is acceptable?

Possibly, one could draw a parallel between the numbers of law school graduates, the proliferation of legalized gaming, the number of divorces, fatherless families, the glorification of the flourishing illicit profession of selling cocaine, marijuana, and heroin, the number of teenage pregnancies, the outrageous number of abortions, the largeness of all governments, the permissive thus imprudent conduct of governing leadership in relation to government’s fiscal status, the commonplace of government deficit spending, and the immense expansion of federal/state socio-economic entitlements.

The evil that erodes the goodness from this great nation is a process of piece-by-piece deterioration of our moral ethos. When the cultural mores of the nation’s professional class determines that the object of winning trumps the means, as long as those means do not breach criminal or civil statutory requirements, America the exceptional will blend into America that once was.

The behavior of “statutorily compliant corruption” is much more dangerous to the veracity of this nation’s lawfulness than an overt criminal act. America is the shining light; we must maintain its brilliance by never compromising the nation’s spirit or moral ethos.


Authored by William Robert Barber

There are four reasons why I am against the current U.S. federal/state socio-economic-political philosophy that is incased within our progressive income tax system:

1. The federal and state (where applicable) policy of individual taxation purposefully excludes or minimizes to the extreme the participation of all citizens to pay income taxes.

2. The present system of distributing taxes collected by the federal government is by prima facie discriminative in application and process.

3. The federal government’s system of taking from one state of the union in order to give to another is (as documented) a model platform for legislative corruption, politician influence peddling, and the guidebook for wasteful spending.

4. Businesses are taxed on profits. The definition of profits is crafted within the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). My issue with that standard as it relates to tax policy is that only profitable businesses carry the entire burden of taxation — and all Obama and his brand of ideologues want to legislate is a higher tax on those profits.

The progressive tax system, by deliberate exclusion, denies at least 45% of this country’s individual income earners the right of participation in the most material aspects of citizenship: The duty of participating in one of the most critical aspects of citizenship, which should not be denied by the deceitful rhetoric of any politician or political party. After all, respective of the politician’s declaration of fairness or the farce of creating an even playing field as the cause to not tax 45% of the income earners, the real reason to exclude is always tied to gathering votes. In this republic every citizen is an obligated participant in the task of governing. One is not a participant if they have no cause for concern; and the most cause for concern is government spending. This duty of citizenship, once denied implies the disenfranchisement (by government) of a citizen’s premier responsibility which results in a marginalization of the individual’s motivation or cause to monitor governmental activities. Obviously, government wants to evade transparency, accountability, and oversight; by denying inclusion in the obligation of taxpaying to a large percentage of the citizenry, the cause to inquire simply vanishes and the politicians that endorse such a policy has gained a vote.

Those citizens who have from generation to generation enjoyed the entitlement of government’s pecuniary support have no cause to participate since they are only on the receiving end of the system. Politicians know that even though each one of these citizens has a vote, there are no conservatives within that demographic. Hence, politicians seeking an anchor electorate know how to keep the entitlements coming…

Further, politicians since and before Caesar attained governmental offices by coercion, the bargaining of influence, and the overt buying of votes. A method of buying votes is to give cash to those that have a vote and a need for the cash. Obama was the most recent – but far from the only – practitioner of giving cash to purchase votes; in fact, the purchasing of power by means legal and extralegal has been going on since the city of Ur.

Interestingly, I have never heard of an American politician citing his or her interest in making the rich richer; it is always rectifying the great wrong done to the poor. For Caesar it was to empower the plebeians with land and government influence to the contrary of Roman tradition as well as to the disadvantage of the ruling patricians. For President Obama it was to give money to those who pay no individual income tax. In both cases the objective was to garner emotional support and buy their vote.

The popular proclamation today amongst the liberal progressive movement is directed to the most exalted and beloved-the middle class. This class, according to the progressive leaders, consist of the the very ones who were tricked, duped by Republican skullduggery, or simply mislead by the just-about-evil rich demigods of the George W. Bush corporate class. Hence the Obama cause to level the playing field via the utility of taxation, taking from the more to give to the less. Or maybe the motivation of Obama was more direct…buying votes via the manipulation of tax policy.

Because we have no term limits, those elected representatives that have been in power the longest, have the most privileges. Therefore, they have the first cut of those monies distributed by the federal government. The process of federal tax distribution is flawed by the process employed, which is why a senator or congressperson of long standing redeems more tax dollars for his/her state than another state or in some cases actually enjoys a surplus of tax revenue — because they receive more than taxes paid in.

The entire system of distribution is fraught with corruptive practice. Millions upon millions of taxpayer monies are paid out for the dumbest of causes; this corruptive practice is known by everyone, but for reasons of political consideration and compromise, the practice is allowed to continue, even flourish. It is shameful.

Most businesses fail. Few businesses actually make a profit. Most small businesses are single proprietorships wherein there is no GAAP profit. Taxes are paid via the proprietor’s salaries. That is exactly why the Obama administration’s effort to aid and assist small business per tax deferment, abatement, or forgiveness is ludicrous; the small business has no profit to take advantage of. Corporate taxes are paid by the profitable and all the elected do is burden these companies more in taxes, as a penalty for the outrageousness of making a profit.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Everyday trillions of dollars are invested by millions of people in public traded corporate equities. For the most part the investments are made by the almost blind and the just about totally ignorant. These trades are administered by the somewhat less than totally ignorant for a fee and the whole industry of trading equities is overseen by a federally chartered agency, staffed by thousands of regulatory-type employees. Remembering that everyone, the investors, the traders, the regulators, and the governments (or their designators) all feed off of the trading volume. No volume – no feed…

In the majority, these buys and sells of equities are whimsically caused to be executed on a presumption that a particular or grouping of forecasts has merited viability. The trading action, be it buy or sell, creates the trading momentum; such momentum either validates the forecasters’ initial presumption or negates the heretofore judgment. Real time software programs are in place to gage the trading volume/price and to execute on the basis of such swings of momentum. In other words, respective of a company’s financial substance, be it judged strong or weak, trading momentum will not be denied its result; the stock rises or falls on the basis of volume sold or purchased, not some empirical truthfulness.

The reasoning of momentum trades are founded on one real fact: No one, in real time, can read a corporation’s balance sheet – and it is in real time that trades are executed. So a licensed trader may go through the motions of prudent discovery per the studying of financial statements, interviewing key persons within the corporation of investment interest, or some other institutionally considered methodology of pre-investment sensibility. But the truth is, no one with consistency can invest into the equity market with any meaningful degree of accuracy.

When one places a bet onto a crap game by throwing hued chips on the table, no observer considers such an action an investment. In fact, the observer defines it as gambling. Now gambling maybe considered by the generous of heart as entertainment; others adamantly declare gambling as the clear and simple example of avoidable risk. But if one directs ones cash to the purchase of equity in the secondary market (listed stock exchanges) even at the 100% risk of one’s principle, the definition of such an action changes dramatically. Indeed the action is defined by most as an investment and is considered an instance of prudent well reasoned behavior, wherein gambling is considered a foolish, even stupid act.

Nevertheless, gambling and investing have certain DNA commonalities; the differing from one act to the other is measured only by a chromosome or two in separation. Both actions require determination of forethought and such determinations, regardless of the particular strategy employed, require timing and cash management. In gambling the contest is (for the most part) about playing against or for the established odds; now of course, the odds in gambling as with the ever-changing factors pertinent to equity investing, are not static. In equity investing, stockbrokers, these licensed pseudo-harbingers of risk mitigation, ‘plot & plan’ with the standard and normative institutionally acceptable advisory: An assorted diversity of holdings, a spread of cash percentages within the variety of holdings, long term thinking that deduces into long-term expectations, coupled with the contemplation of and for more fair-efficient-tax related outcomes.

But after all the Brooks Brother suits and the casino bosses having cashed in their cut of the winnings, my contention is: There is little differing between gambling and investing in the equity market; this seems particularly true for the average Joe. Another interesting similarity between playing the casino games and the stock market is where the players decide to place their bets. In the games within a casino, most play is given to slot machines; with investing in the equity market, the greater percentage of players are vested with mutual funds. In both instances the reasoning for such particulars of behavior is its simplicity of action; neither the slot machine nor the mutual fund requires much thinking…

Equity investing has a wide differing of results as to returns for individual investors only because of one exacting, and that is timing. Timing is everything. Timing applies just as proportionately to successful gambling. Now if I am right and the one and only tangible of surety for making money when putting one’s monies at risk is to make the bet after the horses have run the race. And since no one would take such a bet it is reasonable to conclude that one needs to be a harbinger in order to successfully gamble or invest.

Clearly, investing in equities is arbitrary. Returns on investments are random in nature. There is no such thing as historical norm and all elements of measure subordinate to the power of chance.

Well then, why is it that the global equity market is so popular? How does it so successfully transact, for a fee of course, a win-loss result to millions of people in the trillions of equity investment dollars?

Because just like from gambling transactions, the governments of the world earn multi-millions of cash income from all of the people’s speculating; without the transactional revenue in both gambling and equities, there would be no fees or taxes earned. Unless the government earns fees as a result of its legislative interceding, its ingress into what in the majority is a private transaction, or by the invention of cause so to engage, government cannot gain its commission; no commission, hence no cash to feed its insatiable appetite for more power.

Government is the new all-powerful corporation. It is more powerful than the Standard Oil of old; the railroad dominance of Andrew Carnegie, and the banks of J.P. Morgan. The U.S. government is the largest single greatest monopolist of natural and synthetic resources in the world; it also controls the most lethal armed force since 1st century Rome. It is this very government that has won, by regulation, legislation, investments of other people’s money, and intimidation of litigation, a full-partnership in every aspect of this nation’s material assets.

Imagine that the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the very entities that pay them a fee to be in business. If trusting business to operate free of monitoring is imprudent, why is it prudent to trust the SEC for such a function? After all, without transactions that generate revenues in the equity market, there would be no need for the monitorship.

Plus, who in their right state of mindfulness would trust congress?

I suppose, to varied degrees we are all gamesters. We participate by differing means because we must or because we love it; regardless of our motivation, we are all players – and then we die. The only real winners through it all are attorneys and the governments.


Authored by William Robert Barber

We are getting closer to the November elections. Democrats are desperate for a cause to enable their constituents and disable the conservatives. The focus of concern for the Obama brand is on the independent voters. The liberal progressives need something better to rally the voters than “it could have been much worse.” The blame-it-on-Bush approach is wearing very thin and despite all of that good news, I am still very anxious. Things happen!

This midterm election is a definitive means test of the Obama administration; in fact, such test also applies to the constituents of conservative and independent ideals. Particularly for the conservatives, the task is all uphill. Deep inroads need to be made into a heretofore super majority of Democrats within in the House of Representatives. More Republicans are needed in the Senate. And for very sure, considering 2011 being a census year, there will be contesting over congressional seats; therefore, the governor races are of heightened concern.

The goal is clear: Stop the Reid reelection and stymie the Pelosi and Obama liberal progressive juggernaut by voting out their elected acolytes.

There are so many interesting developments brewing… Arizona’s immigration case is heading for appeal, the contesting in federal court over the healthcare mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance, the posiible extension of all or part of the Bush tax cut, offshore oil reinstatement or not, the tug-of-wills over the wars in the Middle East, Iran’s nuclear insistence, and N. Korea’s belligerence. How will the Obama administration field all of these issues of grave concern?

And of course the grand questions: How will the people of the United States electorally respond to the continuance of the liberal progressives’ policy agenda? Will the voters cast the Democratic majority out in favor of the Republicans or will the response to the Obama progressives be measured and mild? Will Nevada and Kentucky vote the Tea Party candidates in or not?

No matter what the results are of the November election, 2011 will be a volatile year. No matter what happens, Democrats are going to be displeased with the election. Unless the Republicans gain a significant voting percentage — if not the majority — they will be less than satisfied. And no matter the outcome of the election, there is still Obama in the White House… dissatisfaction will be ruling the year.

It will all heat up to a frenzy in September and October; today the Republicans seem to have the upper hand… but tomorrow is not November 2, so I am in my hopeful mode as I strive to cede hope into faith!