Authored by William Robert Barber

A clash is coming. This pending conflict over which opposing political ideal prevails is of paramount importance; the outcome will definitively define the operating meaningfulness of America. This forthcoming contretemps is as critical to the country’s future as the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. The victor defines this nation’s character, ethos, and legislative values for generations to come.

Interestingly, for all of us engaged in this ‘struggle-imperative,’ unlike other conflicts, this pending clash is not open ended. We participants know the exact term as well as the “définitif real” of victory — we also understand that defeat means the end of limited government as a viable concept. The American fortitude of existentialism inclusive of the spirit of American exceptionalism will be discarded in favor of the collective common denominator.

The contesting of the electorate’s heart and mind will start on January 5, 2011 and end on November 2, 2012. The political ideas of liberal progressivism versus conservative limited government principles will be debated in every neighborhood’s nook and corner. From the board room to the halls of academia, from shore to shore, throughout the nation; from the kitchen table to gatherings within the various governing locals: the people of the United States will be asked to bend an attentive ear to a persistent political message. Doubtlessly, the following will occur: Motivated by political advertising and the need to enhance readership or viewership, all venues of media will be taking advantage of the pending bonanza. Unions with lots of cash will summon the faithful so to declare their perspective, the ideologically inspired from the left to right political perspective will pontificate, politicians motivated by the reality of counter-interest victory will lustfully enunciate, President Obama’s “bully pulpit” will typify a persuasion that has run amuck.

Obama’s banner of liberal progressive legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare will be assaulted by the Republicans; the Dodd-Frank legislation is another target of Republican interest. The question is, can the 112 Congress approach all federal government spending, line by line, department by department, which of course includes all programs that would not exist were it not for federal funding, and specifically hound federal departments that simply duplicate function or whose function is deemed unnecessary be shut down?

The Democrats know that their current legislation is in danger only if they lose the presidential election of 2012; so their task will be to thwart all Republican non-funding tactics or formal legislative challenges until that election. Naturally, at the same time the Democrats need to build a positive political consensus amongst the voters as well as successfully fight off Republican efforts to dismantle their accomplishments.

I do believe that if conservatives do not sweep the next election — indeed, the sweep must include a super-majority in the two legislative branches — a politically conservative America will be politically stymied by the liberal progressive minority. From a strictly domestic perspective, liberal progressive in the garb of Democrats is not our only concern. If we citizens are not careful with our votes we will end a nation managed by legal opinions. Wherein congress is set-aside in favor of judicial considerations.

Once this nation accepts the government as the prime mover in all things and items of material value, the core of this nation will soften, our intestinal fortitude will no longer chose the courage demanded of leadership. American leadership will drift and flounder and at the risk of an ever increasingly dangerous world this nation will NOT adhere to its worldwide responsibilities. Instead, America will position itself into a bureaucratic-mediocrity wherein the United Nations will assume the role of world leader.

These next two years leading up to the election of 2012, are critical for this nation and its destiny; at risk is the very meaning of America. Additionally, the futuristic interruptive of liberty, individual freedom, and a truly representative limited-government is hanging in suspension awaiting resolution.


Authored by William Robert Barber

As I understand the game played by contesting political parties and their candidates, all the energy is expended on retaining or attaining political power. The goal of elections is to receive more votes than the opposition. Consequently, the objective of a political campaign, by all means legal or close to extralegal, in its simplest term is to garner votes. This ultra-democratic statutory of one-man-one-vote instantly motivates politicians to promises. These promises are often exaggerated as well as contrived. Sometimes these “in the heat of the campaign” promises included federal cash, miscellaneous benefits, and access to what was heretofore denied.

Normally, after promising the moon and the stars, the politician clarifies the promise with a reasonable number of caveats or synthesis of the original promise. If however the promise has the semblance of a specific entitlement to a certain sector of the population then the politician evangelically concedes that such cash, benefits, and access is actually a moral restitution. It is a societal debt and they deserve it.

The idea, promulgated by the liberal progressive politician, is that the forcible giving from those that have more to those who have less is nothing less than a righting of a long overdue wrong. Effectually, the theses and those who desire the retention or the attaining of power will promise anything under any guise, including dishonesty, to win the necessary votes. A consideration should be given by congress that such actions by politicians is an act of corruption hard, simple, and abrupt; but, then I guess we’re never going to persuade the fox, who we voters sent to the henhouse, to stop eating hens.

The entire concept of achieving the progressive agenda rest on a number of multi-reasoning considerations and arguments, I have exposed three plans. Plan-A’s basis to broaden in scope and size the power of government is the idea of Fairness; Plan-B’s is the plea for social justice, followed by the colloquial concept of establishing a level playing field. And if all else fails to solidify liberal progressive implementation there is always Plan-C, wherein, the progressive argument should prevail so to abate racism in its current form or to enable reparations for the white man’s antecedent racist behavior.

The proponents (socialist, progressives, Marxist) of utilizing the federal government as the omnipotent tool to right the perceived morally wrong-platform their argument by examples of class distinction-they note a pattern of unfairness founded on the premise that the rich are by means explicit or implied depriving, especially the poor, but also, the middleclass of their fair percentage of the bountiful American pie.

Interestingly they hold as culpable, in this conspiracy of immoral deprivation, the very federal government they hope to facilitate as the instrument to right the wrong. Applying counter-intuitive measures, such as blaming the federal government, was not unusual for the Robespierre Committee of Public Safety but in this time and space? Oh yes, wait a minute, now I understand their meaning, it was not the government in general, it was the republican government that created the unfairness. So these champions of fairness need to control the federal government by electing liberal progressives, then and only then, will fairness apply, only then will the rich share their wealth and all inequities be righted.

Naturally, it follows that in order to right palpable wrongs a liberal progressive government must have the power to act.

For example, a means test is essential to establish the definition of fairness; such a test would create a criterion of standards. This is critical because there needs to be a political-legal methodology to define the exactness of fair.

There is also the danger of the ever-present, ubiquitous, though seemingly always difficult to define, powerful special interest. These lobbyists may provoke and persuade action that may not service the acceptable definition of fairness; as a consequence, these lobbyists will need to be suppressed. This is a case for the ‘committee of regulators.”

Those greedy rich corporate persons who insist on higher and higher profits to satisfy shareholder’s insatiable need for dividends are a problem. This type of corporate behavior could violate the definition of fairness and will need to be penalized. Obviously, this is also a case of the “committee.”

Naturally, the ultra-liberal artisans who support the government’s interest in fairness need to be separated from the greedy corporate folks. Additionally, they should not suffer from any scurrilous accusations; in fact, any accusations of hypocrisy or self-dealing will be criminalized. The extension of exception to ridicule, includes, the rich who support the Democratic Party; it is known that these well-to-do really would like to pay more in taxes. Rich Democrats want to pay more in taxes because, frankly, they, unlike the “others” are patriotic and morally sublime.

In keeping with the concept of fairness, when the Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and free-thinkers are properly aligned or suppressed, a statutory law will define not just fairness but penalize any violators of not being fair. As the result of a law defining fairness, empathy replaces prudence, self-reliance, and individualism; no one will suffer, all will be equal, finally, the poor and disenfranchised will inherit their fair share.

Perhaps with a liberal progressive administration, a citizen will be prohibited from being rich. It could as if the estate tax was applicable while one is alive. Death will not be a requirement for sharing one can share while one is alive. The spiritual benefits alone enables one to find happiness on earth. Imagine working 12-14 hour days, risking one’s capital, taking on the stress of business and the reward is knowing that once one reaches a certain dollar number all goes to service the needs of those less fortunate. After all Obama has declared that $500,000.00 is more than enough money.

What I really love about this doctrine of Fairness presented by the liberal progressives? It is not tainted by any entrepreneurs, no capitalistic influence whatsoever, no direct contribution of opinion from equity or bond investors, no financier’s critic, none of that sort of corruptive authoritarians. Instead there is the purity of academia splashed all over this doctrine. There is the sage-like advice of liberal politicians, progressively inclined pundits, résumé-impressive professors that actually teach at prestigious universities, and of course, for real validation there is the endorsement of community organizers.

There is no doubt that fairness is the doctrine that will finally save the weak from the strong, truly, by implementing this doctrine of fairness, the meek inherits the earth as well as heaven…well, upon contemplation, liberal progressives are secularists so I’ll stop on the meek inheriting the earth.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Chicanery seems to be the natural behavior of a congress full of politicians; nevertheless, this “Lame Duck” session, this of this particular congress, this one is audaciously emblematic for its arrogant disregard. In other words, these progressives are bound and determined to enact their agenda. In their world view, skipping over or enveloping the clear message delivered by the voters in the last election (the loss of 63 congressional seats) is not an obligatory consideration of concern. Instead this congress regards the recent electoral results as the actions of ignoramuses and as a consequence the Democratic shellacking should NOT apply to these elected politicians. These “Lame Duck” participants, progressives all, are two-thirds of the three monkeys, one is hearing-impaired, the other is blind to the obvious, and the last monkey just cannot keep form putting its foot in its mouth. This congress is the very essence; the exact definitive of a government managed by officialdoms whose purposeful intention is the development and application of chicaneries.

Noticeably, this congress has finalized the Obama compromise; President Bush must have had a giggle over that. Withstanding President Obama’s repeated declarations of unfairness as to the effect of the Bush tax cuts, his reluctance to embrace Bush policies has made an abrupt U-turn. Now it seems the populous will benefit and jobs will be created…

The ringing concerns of Obama the candidate has been geared down to the reality of Obama the governor of a federal administration. Thus, Obama’s U-turn has a continuum of energy that will bend the political left turn into a conservative right; the president has acknowledged that the left turn was an economic dead end.

Note the clutter of nonsense created by the liberal progressives: Guantanamo is still open despite the passionately delivered pre-as-well-as- post election proclamations as to its closing. This inability to close Guantanamo flies in the face of Democratic leadership’s decisive conclusion that the existence of Guantanamo was unequivocally aiding the world-wide recruitment of Bin Laden style terrorism. That conclusion has been sidelined into the waste-basket of formerly held, but now accepted, as mostly rhetorical nonsense. Bush era tax-cuts reinstated. Terrorist are still being flown by CIA operatives to autonomous destinations for enhanced interrogation. The Afghan war is still being waged by drone and infantry. All of these Obama policies persuade me to wonder if Bush actually won a third-term in the name of Obama.

History is full of dead ideals and idealist. Every once in a while there is a phoenix of socialistically inspired dictums. This affection for what has been previously abandoned is often incased within a moral premise of fairness. I.e. Obama’s first two years of governing. This naively emotive approach traversing a dynamic ever existing contest normally leaps over the requirement of empirical evidence in favor of addressing the detrimental treatment (prompted by the rich, the republicans, and all persons, institutions, or inhibitors of liberal progressive policies) of the poor, the disenfranchised, and of course, the favored of the modern day socialist evangelical: The ever dwindling in numbers & influence middle class. Obama and his liberal progressives ostensibly address all challenges of governance with one prerogative of evaluation: How does this particular policy safeguard the interest of the poor and middle class? After all these progressives understand how important it is to buy their vote with special promises of favoritism.

As with all proponents of autocratic governorships who by logical deduction is also inclined to espouse a preferential elitist mentality. Their narcissistic component presumes and deduces that Descartes’, “Cogito ergo sum,” was specifically meant for them and indeed is the perfect purpose of their raison d’être. Clearly, the liberal progressive movement considers that these words of Descartes were written to declare and define their intellectual superiority. This assumption therefore must mean that the others that populate the nation state do not think; or surely, do not think as well. As such is taken as a fact, it logically follows that this assumptive reasoning (by the liberal progressives) must also serve as the underlying principle or basis of and for their intellectual preeminence.

The elitist of liberal progressive ideology are by explicit definition few in numbers. The very meaning of the few possessing intellectual superiority requires that the many or the common to be intellectually inferior. Since the few manifest sublime intelligence and the many clearly do not it is incumbent upon the few to lead the many. The presumption of elitist must be that voters are similar to domesticated animals wherein the many and the common do not know enough to understand what is best for them. So as a matter of virtuous regard the elite must harbor and safeguard the common.

But sometimes, in keeping with the example of domesticated animals, the common are hesitant and at times down-right noncompliant; this reluctance to comply with what has been decided by the elite as to what is in their best interest forces coercive techniques. A perfect instance of where the common simply do not know what is best for them is ObamaCare.

Obama and his confederates are shameless practitioners of the Machiavellian doctrine, “the end justifies the means.” This dedication by the liberal progressives to their agenda is always going to be a real and present threat to our constitutional republic. There can be no compromise with those of such political-economic differing.

Well, the 111th Congress is on their way out. I am looking forward to the 112th.


Authored by William Robert Barber

We have most recently have been presented with a bipartisan legislative deal: the Obama-McConnell compromise. The liberal progressives are furious, the Republican leadership proud, Jim DeMint disappointed, and Charles Krauthammer appreciative for the column fodder.

As if a protagonist starring in a role written, directed, and produced by his own hand, Obama was in belligerent form when televising his success with the opposition. Calling his compromise partners “hostage takers” while scurrilously denigrating his liberal progressive base by labeling them “purist” ideologues.

Obama and his confederates acknowledge that compromise does mean and fits in as a descriptive of a big fat concession. It is a conciliation with their bête noir; a transparent conceding of many, once fervently held, beliefs. Pelosi and company recognizing compromise implies that the two years of stimuli and regulatory revamping has been an economic failure.

The recent federal and state elections, as pointed out by the President, were a shellacking, a definitive rebuke by the American electorate for the Democratic Party. And as Obama once loudly pronounced, elections do have consequences. A few of those consequences (for the Obama accolades) are eating their own words and affirming the compromise. The fare for such an affirmation with the Republicans is agitation for/by the left wing of the Democratic Party; to paraphrase, Obama has in effect suggested to his 2012 reelection staff, to let them “left-wing purists” bark at the moon.

The compromise, as I interpret, does mean a continuance of the Bush tax abatement and for those who die between now and 2012, the government is entitled to less of your wealth or quite possibly none at all. Despite these perfectly sensible affirmations, the American people are spending more money and supporting the everlasting unemployment cash for not working program. The federal government is teaching its citizens to enjoy more dependence on the government. This new entitlement is simply and only enacted to buy votes for the 2012 election. Regretfully, this buying of votes applies to both parties.

Interestingly, Obama now believes this deal with the Republicans will positively stir the economy and create jobs… hmm, he’s a few billion dollars late with this revelation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

“Wish it was so,” is not a pillar, keystone, nor buttress to any construct. Wishing is not a tangible. Wishing though at times entertaining is a whimsical endeavor. Nevertheless, the foreign policy initiatives of this nation mimic the whimsical; furthermore, if such policy initiatives were applied as a surreal convenience, the resulting sum of efforts would be futile. There could be no more perfect example of the whimsical and wishful than this nation’s capriciously lengthy dialogue with North Korea.

President Truman decided it was in this nation’s interest to commit American blood and treasure to stopping the invasion of South Korea. So instead of dropping an atomic bomb or invading North Korea he and his generals, admirals, and politicians joined a United Nations endorsed plan. This plan was not tactically sensible or strategically sound. It was a mas-o-menos plan of pushing back the bully that pushed first. The invasion of the north upon the south was defended by UN forces (another descriptive for “let’s spill American blood”) as if this was a playground dispute.

Amazingly, to the chagrin of the political leadership in congress, the plan failed. American dead and wounded piled up. The North Koreans ran amok — it did not look good. Stage left enters General MacArthur. The general accesses the situation and executes a bold offensive (an amphibious landing at Inchon) that is so successful it pushes the North Koreans back to the Chinese border. Finally the dynamics of the war have abruptly changed; the invaders are pushed back onto the Chinese border.

However, contrary to MacArthur’s prediction, the Chinese enter the war by the thousands; Truman does not drop the atom bomb nor does he invade China’s mainland. Americans continue to be killed. No matter, Truman will not face the reality of a meaningful decision; MacArthur’s army and marines are overwhelmed and get pushed back… Americans continue to die. MacArthur is relieved of command. Thereafter, Truman’s term of office is ended; he retires to Missouri.

Enter stage right; Eisenhower is elected with the pledge that he will end the war. Note he did not say he would win the war. Well, he got that done. And the N. Koreans have abused this nation ever since.

In 1952, America failed in its obligation to eliminate a military aggressor. The crystal clear necessity was to ignominiously defeat the communist north. America settled for the wistfulness of convenience and the acceptance of an interlude instead of a victory. Now this gangster nation has weapons of mass destruction, distributed its technology, and will be a very real threat to the sector as well as the world for as long as there is a North Korea. Abuse has escalated to the deployment and possible detonation of a weapon of mass destruction. America has permitted an army of over 1 million strong to be managed by a rouge state and once again, we wish…

Of course this policy of “wish it was so,” continues; America is in this fix because we, despite our willingness to spill the blood of our people, spend the gold and silver of our treasury. We insist on evaluating the world not as it is empirically evidenced, but by how we wish it to be. It is as if we have produced, written, and directed a Pepsi Cola commercial wherein we conceive and implement our foreign policy. Well, at least we are not pledging to close down Guantanamo or procure our nation’s civil courts to adjudicate terrorist-killers of purposeful intent to kill innocents. At least we have not stooped to that sort of silliness and flagellation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Every day, informational sources validate a constant: That divisiveness is a commonality amongst humankind and that satisfaction is no more than a fleeting emotion. Amidst the divisiveness and fleeting satisfaction are the all too human temporal effects of pride, unfettered ego, and dishonesty. These effects are coupled to other human traits such as the waste of time, money, living things, and the preponderance of general bullshitski.

Thank goodness… those who know all things (die Hochstudierten) have singled out the problems, excogitated the issues of concern, and firmly placed the solutions before the populus. Interestingly, as if to reconfirm the palpable, it is predetermined by the recipients of these solutions that the presumptive of askance applies. In other words, even the process of defining the problems and offering the solutions is divisive.

Respective of – or maybe because of – our superior intelligence, we humans have firmly rejected the Tower of Babel concept as a doable possibility. We humans are so lustful in our divisive stubbornness that any effort to dissuade our predeterminations is often met with hostility. Empirical evidence that proves contrary to the presently held ideologically beliefs, mores, and affirmations of precedence will NOT prevail.

Nevertheless, the multimedia demands, or should I say points out (at every opportunity) that they represent the voting public, and the voting public demands that the Republicans get along with the Democrats. There’s a tone of caution expressed (by the media) to the GOP, noting that despite their 63 seat pick-up in the House of Representatives they should not consider such an elective victory a mandate; it is imperative, the multimedia strongly suggests, that Obama is met halfway. This of course is the same media that voted heart and soul for Obama; the very same media that overreached its role as a “free press” in reporting on the Obama campaign… hmm, they now have advice for the Republicans.

I think the idea or practice of congressional bipartisanism on material issues requires the intake of mind-altering drugs; Dr. Timothy Leary (LSD) would be the consultant and dispenser. Noting that for many of the liberal progressives and most of the media the effect of LSD is organic to their metabolism; therefore, requiring no synthetic Dr. Leary stimuli. Yes, I am making a funny…

But the point is that the contesting by the diametrically opposed is of greater advantage than the compromise of principles. The conflict of ideas should be limited to oral persuasion remembering that the object of the persuasion is to induce consensus. There is little need or believability of/for belief if it is not strongly held.

Politics require artfulness. Many observers of politicians and their politics may include caginess, deception, and craftiness as components of politics. Winning a contested election is the successful management of chaos. Kind of like a feeding frenzy amongst the brethren. Of course campaigning has nothing to do with governing but everything with promising. Governing, particularly for house members, has more to do with the retention of office than the interest of the nation — if the interest of the nation intersects with retaining office-super; but if not, then the retention of power is the value.

The preceding paragraph is the reality and power of personality. This force of personality has as much to do with governing as the statutory requirements thereof. It is not pretty. It is corrupt. It is far from perfect. It is the very best political system in the world; but it does not inherently necessitate bipartisanism.

If congress is to govern it must have a definitive economic model. As corollary political measures have economic consequences, no politician can legislate without engaging the opinions and advise of economist. Of course the economist engaged by the White House always seems to be aligned with the President’s ideological determination.

Politicians maybe charismatic, some are bullies, others sway easily to the beat of another’s drum. But economists have an entirely different persona; well, maybe façade is a better descriptive. By purposeful design, economist constitutes an illusion of pretentiousness; after all, they must present themselves as harbingers. They also have the advantage of an affable naissance; unlike politicians, just about the entire profession of quotable economists is distilled within the providences of academia.

It is an amusing mix, the politician with the economist; each searching for symbioses, but acknowledging their pins and needles reality. Usually, it is the politician’s ideological inclination that selects the economist whose duty requires numbers, words, and ambiguity to coincide with the politician’s design. If the economist is wrong, such as the recent declaration of 8% unemployment, the politician sidesteps to counter any responsibility.

Once again, divisiveness and fleeting satisfaction are the feckless continuum; to ask for bipartisanism amongst the elected is wistful, even counterintuitive to the interest of the nation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

It seems to me that we listeners, readers, and viewers have cornered ourselves into societies of “peer consensus,” each of us seeking ideological satisfaction and validation of our predetermined mind set. According to the politically knowledgeable the camps of diverse perspectives are reference into three main groups, liberals, conservatives, and independents. The liberals and the conservatives fight, fret, and whine over their degree of success in persuading the independents to their particulars.

Of course, there are laws coupled with regulatory rules that govern the operational scope and specify the dos and don’ts of implementing political (voter) persuasion. But because this is a nation that enforces the laws of one man one vote. And has such, the objective of the persuaders is, (by means permissible, as well as, some extralegal efforts thrown in for human behavioral purposes) to fill their “back-benches” with voting supporters. This need to solicit voters prompts varied sorts of very expensive communicating methodologies. Now because we are a rich nation; a nation of global prominence and power America is thus proportionally advantaged and disadvantaged, depending on one’s tolerance for Machiavellian tactics, by a cadre of statutorily compliant nevertheless corruptive practitioners. I note that its America’s richness, prominence, and power that renders cause to and for statutorily compliant corruption because in poor, indistinctive, and weak countries the statutory laws are engineered, coveted, administrated, and controlled by the boss and designated henchmen. There is no requirement for statutorily compliant corruption; in these countries, corruption is so blatant it is lawful.

But back to America, in this nation of ours politicians and their surrogates have been allowed to promise (a promise is not lawfully binding) lie, distort, and mislead. The media labels this tough politics; politicians reinforce the media’s descriptive at every opportunity, I assume they do so because it is better to call this practice tough politics instead of dishonest. Nevertheless, the one man one vote lawful heritage enforces the facile antecedent reminiscent of 1st century Rome for politicians to buy votes with promises to a sector or class of citizens. Or for the truly inventive and slippery of character…they make special all-purpose promises to all.

Interestingly, irrespective of the ubiquitous persistence of factoids and the idiocy of conclusions remaining constant even when the original premises for which the conclusion was based have been empirically proven false. Respective of ideological groups and their selective as to what they prefer to hear, view, or read. The majority of electorates respective of ideological persuasion are no longer simply stamping approval on governmental edicts, spokespersons representing the government, or the elected representatives and their acolytes.

The stoically irresistible evidentiary of facts are now making up the context of voter empathy. As a standalone the smooth talking pretty people are no longer appealing. There has been a clear division now between one that can campaign and one that can govern. Of course caution is in the air. America is looking to leadership to traverse this nation thru the minefield and on to “green pastures.” We must limit the size and scope of government power, reduce tax, loosen the current government’s leach on business, sign all of the tabled trade agreements, meet our enemies forth rightfully and stand solidly with our allies. I guess that kind of policy forsakes the unionist, progressives, and no-opinion constituency.