Authored by William Robert Barber

The working suppositions of the Obama government are that more regulation is better than less, increasing the taxes of those who have more is not only a requisite to social justice but a moral initiative worthy of any confrontation, increasing the power of the federal government is the willfulness necessary to instill a liberal progressive policy, and that all of the these working suppositions are not only the very thesis of liberal progressivism but essential to the Obama scheme for meaningful change.

In the Obama world of ‘Change One Can Believe In,’ patriotism is a low priority. While Obama’s idea of social-economic fairness is a high priority, a greater, more powerful bureaucracy in partnership with unions is the essential engine that will power the doctrine of social-economic fairness.

The location of power within the United States preceding the progressive era was founded on the idea that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the people it affects. Hence the states, counties, and cities played a much larger role in governing. But over time, and particularly since the rule of FDR, power has been ceded to the distant federal source. Now evidence demonstrates that although this transference of power has been going on enthusiastically for many years, this administration has far greater ambition than simply growing the size and scope of the central government. Obama insists on a transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations; he wants European integration wherein the United States would be part of a united Europe.

Let’s look at the evidence: European-style healthcare, welfare, carbon taxes, day care, college education… he even acts as a European espousing a Brussels-like foreign policy, mimicking a European approach to nuclear disarmament, and his reluctance to deploy US troops in a leadership role is a direct reflection of his ideal Euro-America.

Obama and his progressive confederates possess dangerous ideas. Their ideal America would abate growth, increase taxes (not exactly compatible factors), surrender America’s superpower standing, and trade our exceptionalism for the common denominator of being the same. Of course the Europeans might think of us more kindly; we might become more popular, the Russian and Chinese would gladly welcome us into their sphere of influence. I, of course, do not believe America’s role is one of subordination — indeed, the antithesis is true.

I believe that Obama and his acolytes are internationalists who have accepted the concept of a Brussels-led union wherein the ruling doctrine is that the nation-state must transcend individualism, freedom, liberty, and democracy, and the American rule of law in the interest of servicing policies that are inextricably tied to social justice.

All I see in Europe is a burgeoning bureaucracy, more spending, higher taxes, slower growth, and rising unemployment. This has been the European experience for the last forty years. It is clear to me that American capitalism will win the day… unless the liberal progressives kill the hand that feeds them. And they are trying real hard with fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts, quantitative easing, more regulation, and the stubborn insistence on taxing “the rich,” to snap off the very hand that feeds them.

I was inspired to write this blog-topic by Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament…

letter from the HILL OBSERVER

Dear Bill,

As Congress was out of session this week, I decided to take a look at the current events unfolding in Libya and how the country may want to proceed. Americans have come to consider the democratic rights that we hold to be one in the same as basic human rights. Therefore, Americans almost unilaterally consider it an injustice when a population is ruled by a tyrant. Most of society is ignorant or forgetful when it comes to how commonplace these regimes are in the world. In the instance of Libya, the unified revolt against the regime was so strong that it was picked up by the mainstream media, which in turn incited Americans to demand our government get involved in defending these civilians against their malicious leader.

Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi “Colonel Gaddafi”, has ruled over Libya for forty two years, making him one of the longest-serving rulers in history. This controversial leader recently threatened to “cleanse Libya house by house” in retaliation to his people’s protests. Upon this threat, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on March 18, 2011, that authorized military operations against Col. Gaddafi. The U.N. Council approved the resolution by a vote of 10-0, with Germany, China, Russia, India and Brazil being absent for the vote. The resolution originally authorized humanitarian relief only, but not aid for the rebel forces. The resolution ambiguously allowed for “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.”

The U.S. intervened in Operation Odyssey Dawn at 3:00PM EST, March 19, 2011, and, together with British forces, has since fired well over 120 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya’s air defense systems. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, March 20th in which he stated that the U.S. and allied forces have effectively established a no-fly zone. The no-fly zone is currently over the city of Benghazi, but is expected to be extended to the oil-refinery city of Brega, to Misrata (East of Tripoli) and then to Tripoli, the capital.

Even though the U.N. Security Council authorized an international coalition of 22 countries, the U.S. has been the predominant actor, firing missiles at directed Libyan targets. The missiles have been aimed at more than twenty Libyan targets located along the Mediterranean coastline. The targets have ranged from early warning radar and communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt. To date, U.S. F-16s, F-15s and AV-8 Harrier jets have been patrolling the skies, and have bombed pro-Gaddafi forces who have been continuing their offensive attacks on rebel strongholds in eastern Libya. In Addition, three U.S. B-2 stealth bombers have dropped 40 bombs on a Libyan airfield, in an attempt to destroy much of the Libyan Air Force.

Not surprisingly, Gaddafi has ramped up his propaganda messaging to the Libyan citizens in attempt to rally his people to unify against the U.S. and U.S. ally forces. He has said to them, “It is now necessary to open the stores and arm all the masses with all types of weapons to defend the independence, unity and honor of Libya.” It is unlikely that the Libyans will be motivated to act in this capacity. The Libyans have clearly demonstrated their disapproval and distrust of Gaddafi, although he maddeningly overlooks this.

The U.S. and European counterterrorism officials have surmised that Gaddafi is primarily focused, even now, on maintaining his grasp of power over the Libyans, rather than resorting to vengeful acts of terrorism. Should Gaddafi change his stance, he has stockpiles of mustard gas and other highly explosive devices at his disposal. Additionally, history tell us, in the case of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988 which killed 270 people, Gaddafi is fully capable and willing to orchestrate terrorist attacks.

A common feeling that American leaders have repeatedly expressed, is that America, or President Obama in particular, has been too slow to act or take a stance. During the initial protests, President Obama supported Gaddafi’s decision to remain in power, although he made contradicting statements in support of the people’s fight for a new leadership. When Gaddafi began attacking his own people, the Administration then shifted its position and stated that Gaddafi “needs to go.” However, the military actions taken by the U.S. coalition forces have been primarily in furtherance of the humanitarian mission. These military actions have not necessary been focused on removing Gaddafi from power. In fact, Admiral Mullen has indicated that the U.S. mission could be successful even with Gaddafi remaining in power. However, it seems that most of the U.S. allies were more interested in seeing Gaddafi removed from power, not continuing the civil war.

The U.S., U.K., Italy, and others advocated for NATO to take the lead of the coalition forces. This week Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, announced that an agreement had been reached for NATO to begin enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya. This development has still created great confusion, such as whether or not NATO will be in command of air-based and sea-based missile strikes against Libya’s military and political infrastructure. It is also unclear as to what America’s role will be, and for how long and to what extent. Although the genocide that Gaddafi commanded is horrific, now that we have stepped into these murky waters, it is very difficult to see how we are going to get back out without paying significant consequences. Additionally, as Newt Gingrich has been stated, there are numerous countries that have oppressive regimes in place, many countries with citizens living in circumstances similar to the Libyans. When the U.S. sets the precedent that we are always going to be the heroic, freedom fighters, regardless of the cost, it sets a standard that we should be supporting citizens in the rest of the non-democratic countries currently being run by tyrants. Senator Lugar also echoed this sentiment when he stated that America needs to get our plan straight from the beginning or else there will be a situation in which “war lingers on, country after country, situation after situation, all of them on a humane basis, saving people.” Although this could prove to be a circumstance in which America needed to intervene, our leaders need to be especially cognizant of the precedent this is setting.

The Obama Administration was extremely hesitant to take any type of leadership position or to outline a strategy in this circumstance. Now that they have come to agreements with our allies and proceeded forward with a NATO resolution, one vital step has been skipped. The President has left Congress out of the discussions entirely up until this point. In sharp contrast, British Prime Minister David Cameron has made very specific appeals to the Parliament, outlining the reasons why Britain is intervening in Libya and in particular, why he is putting their British forces in harm’s way for this mission.

The Senate took a small step in passing S.Res. 85, which included a proposal that the U.N. Security Council take action to protect civilians, including a no-fly zone. Yet, the House of Representatives has not taken any legislative action on the issue. As we proceed, President Obama needs to reach out to Congress and clearly identify the scope, role, and purpose of the U.S. presence in Libya. Further, the President should seek a mandate from Congress for further military action. Speaker Boehner made this very plea in a letter to the President in which he stated, “It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.” Some critics have stated that the President is overstepping his Constitutional authority by launching strikes without an imminent threat to the U.S. The Constitution clearly grants the President, as Commander in Chief, the power to declare war; however, it does not grant him specific authority to carry out a war without Congressional approval. This issue is largely overlooked as Presidents in recent terms have made a practice of ordering military action without Congressional authorization, such as with George H.W. Bush in Somalia and with Bill Clinton in Kosovo.

There has not been a clear strategy for leaders to indicate how Operation Odyssey Dawn could be a success if Gaddafi in fact remains in power. Additionally, it is difficult to state the long term goal of our military action, considering the U.S. and NATO have already stated it is not to remove Gaddafi from power. A troubling Reuters/IPSOS poll released this week showed that Americans have very little confidence in President Obama’s role as Commander in Chief. In fact, only 17% were willing to go so far as to say his leadership was “strong and decisive.” Whether or not the intervention was the wisest move, America has stepped in and thus, must now display assertiveness and self-confidence in the face of Gaddafi and his tyrannical regime. In doing so, America should continue to work closely with NATO as well as Great Britain.


Hill Observer


Authored by William Robert Barber

How long will the eagle fly? Despite its history of contrasting contradictions, many black sins, innocence as well as guilty damnation’s, America and its much-respected bountifulness is the envy of peoples throughout the world.

Since its establishment, this nation has successfully evolved and developed; the United States of America is the richest and most powerful nation on earth.

However since the Grant administration, by means deliberate, methodical, and stubborn, the federal government has functionally eroded state sovereignty and at every opportunity reinforced its coercive powers, all the while effectively abating individual freedom.

By the turn of the 19th century, liberal progressive madness was the call of the sane and admired; Teddy Roosevelt (a progressive himself) insured Woodrow Wilson’s presidential success by splitting the vote with a third-party bid. In 1913 an amendment to the constitution forever reconfigured the heretofore-definitive meaning of individual freedom and liberty. The federal government’s power to tax its individual citizens and distribute said tax revenue along the lines of an ideological agenda (usually with prejudice in favor of the particular political party in power) at its sole discretion, has severely and permanently altered the original intent and spirit of the founding principles of this nation’s two most precious documents.

Congress, as if endowed with magical insightfulness, particularly since the era of FDR, has acted with willful irreverence and indiscretion as to the established precedence of constitutional limits on the scope and power of the central government. These “new deal Democrats” superseded their authority and dismissed by uncomplicated disregard the meaningfulness of the constitution. As if in concert with the expansionist, behavior of the federal government the Supreme Court validated the concept of a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and in so doing endorsed the belief that the federal government have an omnipotent supremacy over member states and its citizens; this action must be reversed.

Since the election of Obama and the sweeping 2008 victory of the liberal progressives, this nation decidedly made an oblique turn to the political left. The Democrats thought that such an election was the final hoorah; clean sweeps of all branches of government an overwhelming majority, now, surely now, for sure, a liberal progressive agenda can be implemented.

Americans responded in the election of 2010 by voting conservatives into the House of Representatives. A shocking surprise to the Obama leadership and their followers; the political movement to the right was helpful but it was far from the victory required. Indeed, only by capturing a super-majority in all three branches can America be righted from its progressive tilt left.

So let’s metaphorically melt the plowshares into swords, sharpen our wits, and strengthen our spirit with the moral righteousness of our endeavor and capture a supermajority in the Senate whiles holding on to our advantage in the House of Representatives!

Authored by William Robert Barber

These fiscal battles being fought from sea to shining sea truly do define the dragon from the paladin; of course, because of differing ideological perspectives, the dragon and the paladin are exchangeable.

From my ideological perspective the dragon is without question the liberals and their progressive agenda. For example, in the interest of serving entrenched special interest, the Obama administration has created multiple fiscal machinations; these variable machinations are so intriguing, so fantastically written and delivered, that one could, depending upon viewpoint, easily contextualize either a melodrama or a comedy.

Though delivered as if nonfiction, these progressives actually live in a robustly ubiquitous fiction. Wherein, despite the federal monstrous deficit, the taxpayers should, out of a sort of noblesse oblige respect for liberalism, finance NPR. They behaviorally suggest that it’s just fine that state public employee union pension obligations are in the trillions. The remedy is obvious: Raise taxes on the wealthy. If this were part of the nation’s progressive taxation policy, more entitlements would be fiscally manageable. Harry Reid, a progressive leader, says unequivocally that social security, respective of evidence to the contrary, is financially sound.

Remember when Barney Frank told us Americans that Fannie and Freddie were just fine — that what conservatives were trying to do was ruin housing for the poor.

The distinct premise these progressives are trying to publically convey is founded on a supposition of the rational and reasonable. Their approach to the formulation of fiscal policy is striking the right balance; that there really is a distinction between spending and investing. They are broadcasting to all that will listen the proposal that no rational and reasoned elected representative of the liberal brand, particularly considering the present state of economic affairs, could possibly, consider simply dallying, dithering, as if they were obsessively eccentric ideologically motivated nincompoops. Oh no, these liberal Democrats are not thinking of 2012; they are not dancing so to eat up time so that this year’s budget will be muted by the arrival of end of the year…

Certainly, the Obama government has a living breathing snapshot of what the collapse of a welfare state looks like; surely, it is aware of California. A state that faces an immediate $26.6 billion dollar shortfall, an estimated half-a-trillion dollar public pension obligatory, and unemployment higher than Michigan. The reality is that California has 12% of the nation’s population and 1/3 of the national welfare cases. Now how in the world did all of the highly educated all-knowing wonks allow this counter-to-deductive-sensibility manifest? Well, here’s how: They borrowed and spent the people’s money as if state taxes and fees were on a guaranteed upward path. Naturally, in keeping with the stupidity of enacting and implementing a policy of wish, hope, and disbelieve in the empirically obvious, they were elected and reelected by promising more to those who have less and less to those who have more.

We ideological counter engagers are fighting for a period; we then retire to our corners, recalculate strategy, tactics, and venture out into the middle of the ring. Compromise has become (as it should be) a nasty possibility that neither engager contemplates as a solution. The Republicans are searching for a superhero to save the day… and the Democrats have their superhero.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Because of the behaviorally dysfunctional narrative that contextualizes American politics and the normative nature of human incongruity, legislation in outcome is often contrary to legislative intent. Indeed, often enough legislative effect is assigned the descriptive: “unintentional consequence.” As a consequence of legislators not reading or comprehending the laws considered for passage, the corollary of such daffy legislative actions are laws enacted wholly outside the reasoning or first cause of the original legislative intent.

Within the providence of politic’s influence is the currency of trade. The idea of pursuing one’s ideals or procedure is ancient. The provocateurs of influencing are artful persuaders. Indeed, regardless of one’s political ideology, the action of politics is founded on principles of persuasion wherein the objective is to garner positive consensus.

For example, public employee unions are interested in negotiating their contracting position with a friend of unions; hence, they spend an inordinate amount of their union dues on selecting and supporting Democratic politicians that espouse a liberal progressive belief. Does it really seem sensible for the taxpayers to have a union advocate representing their fiscal interest? The factor of concern for unions, business lobbyists, and consumer necessitates, as well as every other representative of advocacy, is to attain influence in the pursuit of their particular interest.

Machiavelli would be proud of the numerous elected representatives who play out the role of his prince. Liberal progressive governors have led the way in putting their state’s pension and benefit fund in the fiscal position of financial impairment. This came into being because the governors were beholding to union money and physical support.

Predominate in politics is the statutorily compliant corruptive practice of manipulating the process of law making so to gain a political advantage. There are many examples, one of which is the Obama administration’s granting of exceptions to ObamaCare. Another is this dance over the current budget.

Our constitutional originators understood this normative — and founded a written constitutional platform to navigate the bow of state through the dangerous waters of self-interest, corruptive influence, and re- or misinterpretation of original constitutional purpose. Nevertheless, despite the written constitution and regardless of the checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers, the effectual of the judicial branch and mandatory elections held every two and four years, the meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution, has been subject to distortions of original intent.

As the colloquial saying goes, “things happen;” indeed, things did happen and at this very moment things are happening. Wherein, instead of establishing an everlasting democratic-republic, we Americans are governed by an oligarchic governorship that operates in plain sight within the legislative and executive branches of government. Our economy is more socialist than capitalistic; the taxing system implemented by government is designed to redistribute wealth at the discretion of the federal bureaucracy and member states have ceded their historical sovereignty to the omnipotent power of the central authority. None of this enforces individual liberty and freedom; it seems the weight of the federal bureaucracy despite its obvious inefficiency, its monstrous cost to benefit ratio, federal power and bureaucracy have stymied the means and often the will to change.

The recent election did not go far enough; we now know that without a super-majority in both houses and control of the executive branch, the liberal progressive socialist will impede the conservative agenda to the point of ineffectiveness. The 2012 election seems the only real recourse to the course of Obama and his confederates.