Authored by William Robert Barber

It seems Obama is turning conservative — or at the very, very, least he has abruptly right-faced so to appear within the political center. Obama abandons his leftist progressives in favor of a conservative agenda! Now that’s news… but has he actually done that? Hmm… could it be that the rascal is simply, in the interest of political survival, playing politics? Maybe, just possibly, our president wants to be reelected in 2012.

I think that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is likely President Obama is that duck. Obviously the president has decided that tactics of guile, deceit, and deviousness is a much better alternative than being a one-term president. But of course, President Obama’s most recent ‘spin’ is not unusual. In fact, Obama’s cunning realignment of political opinion, even ideological principles, is common amongst the political class. The political class does not require the inducement or prompt of empirical evidence to flush a heretofore closely held belief. For politicians, including our President Obama, the goal is the retention of power and prestige, the means to it is discretionary and quite fluid.

I assume the question that remains to be answered is whether or not Obama will be successful in his political movement to the middle. Surely, after the last election he knows that displaying his political truthfulness to the electorate will not insure his election. Obama’s strategy of excessive taxation so to support permissive lending and imprudent spending is simply a loser policy. So is bashing business. Taking from those who have more, via government coerciveness, so to entitle those who have less, (despite the ruinous effects of progressives’ champions: Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Obama) is not an American ideal nor tenets of a democratic republic.

The exemplar of government intervention regardless of extraordinary resistance of the people is ObamaCare. This legislation was forced upon the people by legislative trickery, backroom deal making, and despicable political rankling. Republicans have pledged that this legislation in its present form will not stand.

So I gather our president will try to meander through the Republican House of Representatives by feigning middle-of-the-road governess and in so doing draw independent voters away from the conservative camp to his.

These next few months will be riddled with promises, promises, mingled in with some bull, a few distortions, lots of half-truths, and several timely placed lies.


Authored by William Robert Barber

They, them, and those, the ones that present themselves as wiser than the common, have suggested that the current general political discourse is vitriolic; in fact, they emphasize that the current caustic and scathing verbalization inherent within all political discourse is beyond recent memory. There is furtherance to their declaration: An elected representative of the progressive cause also stated that symbols, phrases, and even pictorials of a plausibly violent suggestive inspire acts of violence. Interestingly, the presumption that excessively vitriolic accusations or symbols, phrases, etc. are the cause of violent conduct is premised on absolutely nothing.

My conservative leaning mindset believes that these unsubstantiated affirmations offered by the “wiser than the common” are founded on a string of suppositions linked NOT to some evidentiary study by a peer-respected, non-aligned entity. But instead, to individuals with an inductively channeled, ideologically enhanced, resolute pre-condition; this pre-condition taints the deductive process and eliminates the normal functionality of empirical deduction.

For the Democratic-left to blame or even to suggest, imply, or declare that conservative talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Partiers endorsed and promulgated, even unknowingly, violent acts are down-right stupid as well as morally offensive.

When measuring the most recent immediate bombastic-like behavior of liberal-progressives (over the shooting incident in Arizona) one would conclude that the lack of even conceivable evidence does not effectuate any regard or forbearance to the ‘lefties’ persistence on scurrilous oral discharge.

Possibly this nastiness for conservatives by the liberal progressives are prompted by their intrinsic cerebral sublimity. Could it be that secular righteousness blinds a progressive’s insightfulness? Maybe these progressives are suffering from a genetically derived infection that remains dormant unless catalyst into active by the oral incursion of some conservative pundit or talk show host? Of course there is the theory of omission, wherein, that the meaninglessness of progressive intellectualism automatically prohibits common reasoning.

Well, there I go getting all vitriolic…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The basis of justice in this nation of ours is premised on many constitutional principles. To mention a few: America is a nation of law(s) not of man, justice is blind, and under its jurisprudence all men are of equal standing. Well, that is until the officers of the court start manipulating the system and facilitating the process. It does not take but one instance of experience to realize that one’s legal standing have more to do with cash-on-hand then the righteousness of any prosecution or defense. Within the span of one legal defense one will swiftly learn that because of the cost associated with winning an unjustified lawsuit winning still means losing.

There is a distinction between the law as written and the law as practiced. In other words, the process has more to do with the outcome then the founding premises of lawfulness. It is not the government that imposes the rules and procedures upon the process. It is the attorneys, the practitioners of the process, those who charge fees to represent the interest of clients; these legally compliant corrupters, these bright graduates of law schools are the manipulative distorters of the law’s original intent.

For the most part the U. S. Constitution was anvil fired on the working-hypothesis that the people need to be protected from the government. Thus, in the interest of such protection, the government’s operational wherewithal should be limited. Unto fore, the elected gathered in 1787 to create a more perfect union; two years later per the process of ratification and the insistence of including the first ten amendments, the constitution was established. Flaws to this founding document were inherent; the particulars of such flaws were illustrated in its exceptions and exclusions; however, the document did allow for the process of amendments, as well as, the means to convene another constitutional convention. Flexibility was built in. And regretfully, in the interest of flexibility, an allowance for interpretation was a contingent liability with unforeseeable consequences.

Protection from the government is all well and good. However, it matters little if the focus of protecting the people is centered on the government; when the culprit that the people need protection from is in fact attorneys. Attorneys that by sheer numbers inundate congress, they sit on every important committee, as staff attorneys they write the laws and as colleagues they insert, rescind, delete, include, distort, misinform, lie, dilute, and willfully compromise the significant into the meaningless. But attorneys do agree, in the interest of self, on the opaque and ambiguous versus the transparent and apparent. They have esteem for the process. Be it the process of discovery, filings, opinions, court appearances and discourse, it is the process that attorneys worship.

It seems the only counter to this affront to sensibility and lawfulness is other attorneys. Per thousands of years of litigation, legal contesting, and extralegal contrivances it is obvious that fighting attorneys with attorneys, though very expensive, is the only defense as well as offense.

Of course the people could insist that half the law schools be closed; of course attorneys would love that billing hours would definitely increase. So maybe a referendum that bands attorneys from holding public office…hmm; surely, the courts would nullify that, after all what are judges but former practicing attorneys.

The distance between fair and just is filled with attorneys. They are and will continue to destroy the ordinary meaning of fair and just; they will use the process as the hammer and common ignorance as the anvil. The beating by the hammer on the meaningfulness of liberty, individualism, personal responsibility, and general freedoms will result in the shape of a pervasive abatement of America’s tradition of character, virtue, and values. It is not the government; it is the attorneys that we layperson’s need protection from…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The interdiction of common human behavior is the answer. The question is: How is it possible for us humans to put any faith in an honest, ethical, and morally driven governing system? And since the answer is counter intuitive to the process, we humans must go to plan B. The answer in plan B is founded in the knowing that since the interdiction of human behavior is inherently impossible, it pragmatically follows that (for those of us who are governed) prudent-sensibility requires a distrust of the government, as well as those persons that govern.

Because of most recent or present palpable evidence, (one need only to read the newspaper) reams of historical documentation, and considering that the apparatus of government as well as the operating software is human created and dependant, the plan B answer is a reasonable response to the question.

Nevertheless, since the inception of the republic we citizens have allowed government to grow and assume more and more integration in, for, and about our civic, economic, social, political, educational, and business lives. Today, as a result of such permissive allowances, the average citizen’s dependency on the ubiquitous means and apparatuses of government is profound.

Inclusive of the lack of citizen engagements, even awareness in the affairs of government and its governing, there is an additional prompt; a formal political-economic policy, a doctrinaire, a magisterial representation in the form of an ideology named as liberal progressivism. This ideology is a sociopolitical economic philosophy that has encouraged and sponsored excessive allowances for governmental ingress into the affairs of once free and independent people. Progressives want to create by imposition (if necessary) an equalitarian entitlement state. These believers of progressivism are guided by many beliefs. I will point out two:

The first of their beliefs are that only government can take on the role of a third party arbitrator. Of course the government is not a being. Hence, what the propagators really mean is that it is the government’s designate that will act as the unaligned third party. Now of course the go-to question is, well, who exactly are these designates? The designated representatives are colleague-politicians, staff, which for the most parts are in-house attorneys, and the in-the-loop appointed. It is noteworthy to appreciate that legislation is guided by representatives but actually written by the non elected and hardly ever read by the elected. There is additional aid and assist given by committee members or contemporaries who practice compromise with the understanding that such artfulness means something for everyone, less the loss of a principle or two. In the shadows of the legislative corridors are the ever-present lobbyist/affiliates that exchange legally submitted rewards for just listening to their particular persuasion. No one could possibly configure that there is cash or equivalent for legislative services rendered. The preceding is the government’s rendition of an unaligned third party.

The second substantial belief is one of actually disbelief. The advocates of relying on governmental management of just about every human endeavor does not believe in facilitating the requirements of a bustling private enterprise. Indeed, liberal progressives retain nothing but askance, hesitation, and bitterness for businesses that make “excessive profits.” President Obama said that an annual salary of $500,000.00 is more than enough money for anyone; implying that anything above that amount should be retained by the government.

Federal, state, county, and city governmental bureaucracies have a different slant on making more money; their unions have negotiated salaries, benefits, and pension retirement endowments worth far more than the private sector. The amounts of governmental pecuniary obligations (specifically for pensions) when measured against available present and future funds fall short by billions. If government was a private enterprise, not only would it be forced into bankruptcy but most of its leadership would be in jail. Nevertheless, for the acolytes of liberal progressivism, private enterprise is the one that suffers the wrath of scurrilous denunciation.

Liberal progressives have little to no faith in private enterprises’ ability to manage their moral righteousness or their civic, consumer, and employee obligations and responsibilities. Withstanding, private enterprises’ adherence to their obligations and responsibilities is in fact exactly what private enterprise does day-in-day-out. Indeed, without a profitable private enterprise, there would be no profit to tax and therefore no government to fund.

Yes, of course there have been and will continue to be dastardly, even outwardly evil persons managing private enterprise. Why not, private companies are made up of humans and thus are susceptible to dysfunctional behavior.

Protection in the form of regulation is a function of government; but government cannot regulate good sense or moral principles. Government decides civil and criminal violations, it can enforce laws; government has the judicial process within its governing apparatus, but, because government is created and manned by people, it requires explicit monitoring by a distrustful citizenry.

If we the people are not judicious in our distrustfulness of government, social security funds will be taken out of the lockbox trust and used by congress. Tax laws will be so Byzantine, ambiguous, and counter-sensible that the taxpayer will not understand the very laws they are bound by; the federal government will, by the arbitrary dispensing of tax dollars, encroach and eventually override state’s prerogatives and rights; congress could, possibly, establish budget busting entitlements; and before one knows, billions compounded by billions of dollars will be printed to fund federally owned and operated mortgage lending entities. So let’s keep our eye on the elected, the appointed, the staff, and apparatuses of government; otherwise, the preceding could actually happen.


Authored by William Robert Barber

It is amazing how we citizens accept “a culture” of untruthfulness from our elected or appointed officials; they purposefully disseminate their untruthfulness by means blatant, furtive, abstract, and ambiguous; wherein the only certainty of intent of and for these elected or appointed is, instead of educating or dutifully informing (their constituents), they utilize the facilitators of disinformation, misinformation, and general all-round horse-manure as their communicative contextual.

Particularly frustrating is the arrogance displayed in the execution of their nonsensicalness; they act as if such untruthfulness was the mundane-behavioral normative. Should there not be a law prohibiting any conveyance other than truthfulness by an elected representative to the public? It is a federal crime to lie to the FBI; but an elected official may convey less than the truth and nothing but distortion or misinformation to ’Joe public’ — free of penalty!

This practice (amongst the elected) of ignoring truthfulness in favor of other than the whole truth creates the intrinsically infested putrefaction that inevitably destroys our republic. Nevertheless, voters’ pique in this profoundly manifested behavioral dysfunctional has been brushed aside to the most common of consideration. Presently, because of the electorates’ naïve trustfulness of the political process and broad disregard of their citizenry-obligations, today, at this very moment, this “culture of untruthfulness” is viral and endemic — and for our republic life threatening.

Congress as an institution, the elected, as well as the appointed, are culpable of establishing this environment of circumlocution instead of transparent straight-talk. Our nation’s institutions are suffering from moral legitimacy because the practitioners of governing are less than truthful. There has been a demote reset of the moral denominator; expectations of virtuousness by the governed are impaired by secular dismissal, and the world turns on an axis of Machiavellian function rather than the principles established by George Washington.

Corruption is not a viable economic alternative. It will not work for anyone, including the corrupters. When an elected official conveys anything to the public that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the entire system of governing is adversely affected.

This is another solid reason why limited government is part of the solution; the smaller the government the less places for politicians to hide. There is no substitute for governing honestly, straight-up, and factually; the responsibility of such governess rests with the people. Rascals and empowerment is an elixir much more infectious than nicotine; and like nicotine’s effect upon the respiratory system, empowered rascals will destroy this republic.