Authored by William Robert Barber

I really want to pick on these Democratic politicians who just cannot get it into their brain housing group that they are on the losing end of a very material issue.

The issue of material concern consists of two separates that have a symbiotic connection: The first is the excessive cost of governing; the other are the public employee unions and their utility of collective bargaining as such pertains to satisfying the requirements of a balanced budget.

The gross federal & state taxable revenue has recently taken a negative downturn; the result of which has been an unrestricted exposé, a pictorially delivered rendering as to the bona fide cost of governing for all to review. The sequence of such a review is the immediate conjecture that the day-to-day, year-to-year cost of governing exceeds tax and fee income. The audit deduction deduces the fact that union expenditures in the form of salaries, benefits, and pensions are not only unsustainable but illogical. The lawful utility of collective bargaining by unions has handicapped negotiating by local and state governments to the point where unions have actually usurped the meaningfulness of elections. They limited the sensible ability of state/local government to lower operational cost to a nonoperational degree. Unions have had the effect of disenfranchising the duly elected from the implementation of prudent governing willfulness. They have purposefully intervened in the affairs of governing to such an extent, impairment is a discussed recourse.

The camouflaging or concealment of governmental liabilities has been hidden from first sight by politicians of both parties rather efficiently. That is until the Obama administration’s insatiable spending appetite forced a second look. Reality is that it was Obama and his socialist tendencies coupled with his progressive political beliefs that provided the most significant contribution to the conservative cause of limited government. It is not to say that President Bush and his republican majority did not try to throw taxpayer funds into the fire of the outrageous and stupid; but, unlike Obama, Bush failed to incite the conservative base. President Obama did manage to agitate the public; of course, the outrage was prompted by trillions of (investments?) spending dollars into governmental silliness.

The single goal of leadership is to be right; President Obama and his acolytes were wrong on way too many policies. It was Obama’s team that predicated unemployment would not pass the 8% mark as a precondition to passing the stimulus bill.

For decades, federal, state, and county public employee unions have bullied, cajoled, and negatively impacted their (fellow citizen) employers; they have challenged the ‘right to work’ environment and lost the contest. In the election of 2008 they elected Obama and a whole host of liberal progressives; they captured an overwhelming majority in the legislative branch of government. Nevertheless, by 2010 they lost the House of Representatives to the conservatives; they were befuddled and regressed into the explanation that unemployment numbers were simply too high as the reasoning of their shellacking.

Well, unemployment numbers were and are high because their policies do not work. Now they are doubling up on endorsing public employee unions; even Obama traversed into the fray with his concern that public employee unions are being illegitimately assaulted by Governor Walker.

Here is the fact: Democrats are lost in the desert of “once upon a time.” They are searching for the progressive promised land. But not only is Obama not Moses; he is caught between the purgatory of supporting business and limiting the growth of government, a workable policy or advocating a liberal progressive agenda that he knows will not create jobs nor raise taxable revenue. If he wants a political future he must swing to the right… but he just can’t do it.


Authored by William Robert Barber

We have an economy larger than China and Japan combined — and we still need to sell debt instruments to foreign entities in order to meet our spending requirements?

Let’s think about this self-imposed conundrum… This nation protects the trading interest, the physical properties, and lives of millions of people who reside within the “providence” of the Free World. We are a very real martial hesitation for any aggressor; in fact, we, along with Canada, England, and Australia are the only true deterrent to any overt military threat whatsoever.

We are the largest consumer nation that has ever existed and withstanding our fiscal issues and unsustainable national deficit, we are still the transactional envy of the world.

If all is as I describe, how did this nation put itself in the position that it finds itself in 2011? How could we have so tangible a resource and yet be so very dependent on foreign nations purchasing our debt? Presently our national debt is 1.6 trillion dollars. Imagine the interest payments! The people of this nation are consuming benefits by borrowing money from foreign sources. We are caught up in this fiasco of counter-intuitive intercourse because we lack the managerial wherewithal or fiscal discipline to reduce our spending while living within the means of our tax revenue.

The grand question is: How in the hell did this happen? Why is it that America lacks the managerial wherewithal and fiscal discipline to straighten out its mess?

Over the last hundred years we have allowed the illogical influence of socialists, progressives, liberals, Epicureans, sophists, academia recluses, and the ideologically naïve into convoluting the very ethos of American governing tradition. The result is a legislative approach that champions a doctrine that government knows best, a presumption wholly void of empirical evidence.

As a nation we have traded leadership for a benign-sort of followship. Wherein legislators blend, compromise, affiliate, and with purposeful intent have collectively deduced that it is much safer (reelection considerations) to hide within the majority of opinions than to step forward and be distinguished. Because there is a human empathy for the commonality of behavioral dysfunction, tragedy, financial inequality; a differing of social and cultural upbringing. Many of the elected, in the interest of buying votes, have decided that government should fund entitlements, grants, and loans as well as all sorts of social, educational, and economic development programs to right any and all wrongs that could possibly be attributed to anyone not born into a financially functional family.

Obama has just put forth his budget; he has chosen to follow instead of lead. Rather than addressing the issues of the day he is playing the political game of 2012 reelection. He is the quintessential follower posing as a leader — he is a spokesperson, a representative of a political ideology — nothing more. Leadership is a distinctive trait; one knows it when one sees it. A leader embodies confidence, takes all the responsibility, and knows he or she has just one obligation, and that is to be right. Obama and his confederates are lost in the ‘wilderness of wish-it-was-so;’ they are the weight around the ankles of self-determination, self-reliance, and values that aggregate to form American exceptionalism.

We do need to rid this nation of the Obamas of the world; the election right around the corner, opportunity is nearby… but conservative principled leadership is required!


Authored by William Robert Barber

The citizens of this nation have a serious behavioral problem which has developed into an ever repeating, never resolved quandary. We learn, we forget, we relearn, and then we forget again. This pattern is particularly evident in the application of our principles of self-governing.

The framers of the constitution built in a system of checks and balances within the federal government for a reason. It is my presumption that they knew that when defining government, one is actually defining not so much the structure but the application — and the application of governing is implemented by persons; government is people-managed. Therefore, trustworthiness is counter-sensible. Trust is not an inherent tangible of governing… quite the contrary!

History validates that government, regardless of edifice and withstanding its constitutional means, will always feed itself first. Therefore and as a consequence of being people-managed (an intrinsic ever-present defect), government will always choose the enhancement of its own power at the fare or disregard of its citizens’ individual liberty and freedom. Although evidence of government’s steadfast encroachment on individual liberty and freedom is apparent, we Americans are always relearning the same lesson over and over again. We never seem to remember that the nature of government is to act omnipotent, repressive, and coercive. Crises, perceived or real, always result in the abatements of individual rights while government entrenches itself in depth and girth into American business and society.

I believe that humankind, from a behavioral perspective, since the beginning of record keeping has demonstrated that mankind has a predominant predisposition, a discernable fondness for the most bane of human distinctiveness. Indeed, certain specific actions of humankind could be classified as clinically dysfunctional, possibly psychotic. The conundrum created by my analysis of human behavior is formed in this question: How is it possible that any citizen could take at face value the words of any elected official?

Certainly, government will always be managed by people; I am not suggesting some newly developed software will replace people. I am stating that we must finally learn that these of the elected class must not ever be trusted. The wise has said that government is a necessary evil. Lord Acton, “all power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” I can rightfully suggest that any power managed by any government, including the Vatican, needs the constancy of distrustfulness and monitoring.

Presently, our president is acting like a centralist. He is saying positive things about private enterprise. Cutting the rising cost of government, seeking the means and ways to compromise with the Republicans, irritating his leftist brethren… this entire episodically designed New-Obama, is supposedly a translucent effort to… hmm — something do with some future thing.

With the election of 2012 looming, moderate Republicans are leaning right and left, leaning Democrats are leaning moderate. Whatever happened to mean what you say and say what you mean?

Now, what did I say about trusting government and their elected underlings? Oh yes, keep the pressure on, we conservatives must insist on the downsizing of government in scope and regulatory power, stop this constancy of impetuous federal spending, stop the collateralizing today of federal revenue into the foreseeable tomorrows, stop throwing away more taxpayer funds into ill-effective entitlements, encumber our elected representatives, find a solution to illegal Mexican immigration, secure our southern border, legislate an initiative to utilize our nation’s fossil fuel resources, and insure that the federal government understands our demand of laissez-faire.


Authored by William Robert Barber

When one recalls the foreign policy actions of this nation over the last sixty-five years or more, documentation suggests that the policies enacted or attempted to be enacted resulted in a discombobulated maelstrom of more befuddlement than sensibility. Starting with allowing the Russians to attack Berlin during WWII and then ceding Stalin Eastern Europe, the preceding policies up to the present were naïve, even silly, with a mêlée of slapdash governess added just for hue.

As the architects of our own foreign policy design we were and are all over the board of probabilities to possibilities. Often our efforts seem rudderless. At times we have more sail on our ship of state than the objective would require; at other times, despite the palpable of purpose and all through the wind is at our fantail the pinions are bare. I do wonder how we could do so much stupid all the while remain the richest, most powerful, and acclaimed nation on earth. I can only assume that the other nations on earth are worse and/or that our reign of the most powerful is coming to an end.

We have Americans’ blood literally gushed and spread all over the world while this nation’s taxpayers are indirectly and directly giving away billions of dollars in foreign aid. We actually have given aid to our enemies; some policy implementers believe we are presently aiding the very Philistines that only want to do us harm. And what do we receive in return? The recipients clamor for more cash as they treat us with disaffect and disgust. Now, who exactly are the designers of this sort of befuddled foreign policy format?

This nation’s foreign policymakers lack the will to steadfastly point true north; we meander about in the afternoon trying to put out fires started in the morning, we are defending and reacting instead of anticipating and invoking. The elected and appointed bandy with prideful assurance meaningless verbiage, mistaking such nonsense as statecraft.

I suggest a meaningful realignment of underwriting criteria when analyzing risk to this nation’s interest. I would start with reassessing the prompts that effectuate an administration’s response to a particular international cause or incident. The response should be guided by a predetermined strategy. This strategy, at a minimum, must envelope tactical flexibility, a constancy of prudent processing, as well as achieving a consensus derived course of action so to enable a policy of oneness and conclusiveness.

The art and science of creating and implementing such a predetermined strategy is founded on objective principles of engagement. This strategy must infuse behavioral sensitivity to the challenge of an ever changing terrain and situation; therefore, the merit of a viable strategy is founded, in part, on its inherent flexibility.

Clearly, information gathering is a critical max factor in the extraction of intelligence and good actionable intelligence is critical when forming policy. But solid-timely intelligence, though imperative to success, will always fall short if our foreign policy initiatives are bungled because of poor management. Bungling is the fault of leadership. This fault of leadership is traced to leadership’s inability to define, much less uphold, any basis of substantive principles. Our rhetoric does not match our conduct. Our deeds are subject to murky interpretation and inexplicable clarification; and we wonder why our counter parties are miffed.

One of the reasons leadership poorly manages the affairs of foreign policy in form and implementation is that leadership lacks a basis of and for substantive principles. The administration talks of American-like values while operating to the contrary. A part of our continuum of blundering resides in the hyper-fluidity of our virtues; our inability to steadfastly adhere to the values and convictions expressed in our founding documents. It is our suppleness that erodes our conviction to objective principles. Over time such degeneration of belief in our founding principles abate the behavioral acceptance of what heretofore was the mores of norm.

Could it be that the textual of our policy is synonymous and guided by amoral Machiavellian persuasion? After all, Machiavelli did advise the prince to use hypocrisy whenever expedient to gain and maintain power. When the differing between the façade of moral intangibles are confronted by the amoral reality of application, there is no contest. The bureaucratic procedure of favoring precedents mandates amorality as its reality, and morality sits on the wayside, awaiting another opportunity to deceive.

This country’s foreign policy has taken the course of many powerful nations. Wherein leaders have forgotten the basis of their raison d’être, their founding a priori has been perverted, redirected, and possibly abandoned. Befuddlement and oral discombobulating are the result of such straying from the founding values that are encased within The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of The United States, the Federalist Papers, and the tradition of American ethos.

I suggest this nation returns to our founding principles and utilizes such as the basis of our foreign policy.