Authored by William Robert Barber

Whenever opposing personalities representing differing ideologies or political party affiliations confront each other, particularly when presented in front of broadcast media, the question asked (by the host) is almost never answered. Instead of a direct answer to a direct query, the answerer prefers an oral rendering that may or may not have some semblance to the subject of the question. If the representations of differing political perspectives are physically or virtually present, invariably they evolve into speaking over each other and the listener is inhibited from hearing neither. These ideologically enhanced representatives, elected, appointed, or staffed, behave as if programmed and robotically manipulated by some self-righteous guru who by means inexplicit has grasps firmly on to the ideal-political truth of the matter.

Respective of attempts to dislodge these acolytes of ideological believers they steadfastly stay committed to the predetermined established line. They never permit facts to discourage them from their programmed commitment to the script. Interestingly, this act is repeated over and again; if there is an exception, it is only apparent when the host, and the guest has both drank the same cool aide. Then each buttresses the others perspective by complimenting on how smart they are and how dumb the opposition is.

My assumption is that ‘the handlers’ believe that freethinking and impromptu responses are way too dangerous an endeavor. Which leads one to deduce and conclude that the ‘bosses’ of the politically sensitive text cannot trust the personal thoughts of the question-responder; therefore, deception is the operational objective of ideologues in general and political parties in specific.

I am not really sure if this policy of purposefully misleading the voting public is effectual; nevertheless, obviously ‘the handlers’ do believe that this tactic of never answering a direct question with a direct answer is effective.

Possibly all public officials should swear an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth prior to making any public statement. If caught in a lie then the charge, as if responding to a question from the FBI, would be (an indictable) perjury. If such a benchmark was extended to political advertisement/publicity imagine how much money the networks would lose during an election cycle.

Sadly, the public cannot open-handedly trust politicians, the appointed, or the staffed; but then why should we presume that we ever could? It is a healthy voting public that looks upon its governing authorities with askance. The same attitude of skepticism even cynicism should prevail upon politically driven data, research, statistics, associations, and cleverly designed opinion surveys. It is not that political truths do not exist; it is that they do NOT exist in any pure form. Politically-unadulterated form is as much a myth as Obama’s “change we can believe in.”

For instance the newest politically inspired declaration by the Democrats are that the Republicans favor ideology over country. The implication is that Republicans are less patriotic than Democrats and it therefore follows that Democrats value patriotism over political ideology or party. Amazingly, this is repeated from one senior Democratic representative to the public as truthful. Does anyone believe that Republicans are less patriotic then Democrats? This sort of distorted nonsense is 4th grade dialogue acted out near the swing sets during recess.

Just as disconcerting is the questions that some of these network host asks. They are more interested in got-you questions than substantive. I wish the questioners would pre-declare their particular political affiliations and prejudice prior to the interview so that the audience could understand the motivational inclination prior to the Q & period.

I suppose I am asking way too much… after all, having direct questions answered directly is counter-traditional to America’s political-media legacy. Seemingly the goal is to usurp common sensibility by treating the voters as if sheep, cattle, or fish in a fresh water aquarium wherein the fish hobbyist makes sure that the temperature is balanced in line with compulsory additives and feeding.

It would be terrific if a TV program required all political guest to speak only the truth as they believe it to be and then instantaneously have a fact check meter that spurts out evidence that endorses or disproves the politicians’ statements. Well, fat chance of that happening, okay, I agree we need to deal with the reality of the possible not the supernatural; the answer in the immediacy is to scoot that Obama team out of office in 2012.


Authored by William Robert Barber

As the stock markets of the world kinetically vibrate, setting a pace of newly found extremes for sell-off and buy-in, investors surrender to the bafflement of two offers: The first is to accept the blindfold, and the second is to stare-down the oncoming bullet as it races for the spot just above one’s nose.

Speculators of genuine risks are buying gold futures, coin, and billion by following the golden rule for speculation: Prices rise when buyers significantly outperform sellers — of course the opposite rings just as true.

Remember! The purchase of gold does not add capital to a company’s balance sheet; these treasures will not fund research of discovery or invention. An ‘investment’ in gold is a bet founded on the principle of hoarding.

King Midas regularly counted his gold; but he gained no material benefit from the gold until he made a purchase. Obviously, as soon as Midas transacted a purchase, he not only had less gold but the price of gold as a necessity of market dynamics depreciated. When one sells ones — gold which is a requirement in order to attain a product or service — one does so by a conversion to fiat currency. In other words, eventually one is going to sell gold for legal tender; otherwise, there is no benefit to holding on to gold. If I was a holder of gold I would want to be first in line on the selling side because if I am not in the front, the price of gold will be far less valuable to me standing somewhere in the middle of the sellers pack.

Licensed professionals bandy about their theories and conjecture their forecast. All of these suit-and-tie personalities act as if they were/are the bona fide harbingers of repute, each exuding the confidence of an “I knew my horse would win” bettor; of course this is only after the horse race was over.

It is my belief that genius, like wisdom, and luck are results that can only be accurately measured in arrears. No one knows — one only guesses that one knows.

A hypothesis, a tentative explanation of a phenomenon, is a best guess effort to explain what we do not know for sure. I believe all of these professional guessers are sincere hypothesist striving to analyze and present a reasonable rational commentary on an event that quite possibly could be wholly unreasonable and irrational.

The statist that occupy the White House lament that the Stimulus was too small, not big enough because they miscalculated the enormity of the economic Bush debacle. Their premise of finding the economically viable light and the way has not moved one iota from their insistence that Keynesian economics is the answer to the woeful status of present US economic ills.

In keeping with that belief they also believe that the federal government can directly create private sector jobs. Well, the certainty is that the federal government cannot directly create jobs. Other than covertly enhance or overtly embrace governmental bureaucracy, possibly bedfellow, even more openly the unionization of America, government involvement in private business can only increase the cost of doing business, stymie productivity, and – when coupled with Obama’s resolve on super-regulating enterprise – government can only belay growth.

I have no idea why we need to relearn the simple and palpable over and over again. Capitalism is the most potent of economic methodologies/systems. Currently, the federal government is managed by progressive persons who depend on an ever-increasing manifest for governmental largeness; they depend on the viability of increase taxation as a matter of policy. Factually, liberal progressives could not sustain their raison d’être, their howl in the light of a full moon if government is limited in operational scope. Progressives require a big fat bureaucratically enriched government in order to inhale their brand of oxygen.

This American economy will overcome the Keynesian policy of where-for-naught as it intersects with the Obama administration’s design of social justice and class warfare; it will rise above the ills of the EU malaise, it will, with the aid and assist of the Supreme Court, withstand the costly breach of good sense by rescinding ObamaCare. All is to be rightfully settled in the election of 2012.


Authored by William Robert Barber

I do wish that I could express myself without seeming so accusatory or self-righteous when speaking of liberal progressives and their beliefs. But despite my aspiration to speak with temperance even respect my partiality and outright disdain for these progressive beliefs overwhelm all such sensibility. As a consequence I am stirring and enflaming instead of attempting to understand or explain-very insensible.

After all knowing that tolerance is a mainstay of societal interface I cannot claim ignorance. I understand that if one is not open to discussion and civil debate one has forsaken the principles engrained within a democratically inspired republic. Nevertheless, I cannot, so it seems, refrain from aggressively voicing my disagreements with the policies and ideology of liberal progressivism.

Of course, examples of leftist who espouse progressive vituperation of, about, and for persons’ of conservative ideology is plenteous. Regardless, of their scurrilous behavior toward conservatives I realize that I should not justify or act in a like or tit for tat manner.

Yes, ok, I should not. But here, with the helpful guidance of Peter Berkowitz of Stanford’s Hoover Institution are a few reasons why I have developed a serious attitude of intolerance for the ideology of liberal progressivism: -Progressives see themselves as the only legitimate representative of ordinary people-they believe that perfection can be attained through the rule of experts and that diversity of opinion distracts from the policies demanded by impartial reason-democratic pretensions and the pretensions of non-authoritarianism create a transparent conflict that hamper the implementation of their political philosophy-

True believers of progressivism must reside in an Apocryphal bubble. They can only flourish in academic vacuums wherein scholarly apparatchik’s can ponder over concepts, possibilities, and quixotic wish-it-was-so. But in the world of behaviorally dysfunctional humankind power is the weapon of choice not rationality, reason, or sensibility. Indeed if one is not the most powerful compromise of sovereignty is the only alternative to destruction.

President Obama preaches that he and his political brethren is the Vox populi; that the Democratic Party is the party for the quotidian. Hum…all I behold from this progressive administration is depredations not just to this nation’s economy but to our sense of American exceptionalism, to our belief that individualism is righteous and simply put collectivism is sinful; this is the contaminating result of Obama’s progressively inspired presidency.

I suppose I have revalidated (for myself) the why fore of my utter lack of tolerance for progressive thought and policy. 2012 will be a seminal election; this election will determine the trajectory of this government of ours. If Obama wins…damn I got to get such negative thoughts out of my head.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Every American is seeking financial surety. Or so says, the select, the brethren of those that comprehend most if not all things. If one seeks such surety one must not make bets in equities, commodities, and avoid the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. One must stay far away, vesting with neither FOREX nor dapple in futures with variable options. And certainly, one must never fool one’s self by creating the self-delusional notion that these at risk bets are anything close to a prudent investment.

George Know-it-all, PhD from Harvard, Yale, and Princeton a renowned wonk who has mastered the obvious points out that: Financial markets have been swaying vertically for thousands of years. George emphases the meaningfulness of financial markets’ by the illustration that in order for a market to go up it must go down. Therefore, George suggests, that the facile objective for profitable performance in the equity game is to buy the instrument when it is down and sell it when it is up. George is right there with Obama when it comes to market economics.

Setting aside the comments of Mr. Know-it-all, PhD the essence of a viable stock exchange is measured in no small part by the fluctuation of its dynamics. A flat line market will not create the necessary action of buying and selling. Financial upheavals and disruptions within the global marketplace off set the elements of the contrived and mundane. Most of us in-trust our investments to licensed brokers, mutual funds, or bankers; in other words, few of us understand the melodrama of striving to invest for a profit. Hell, most of us cannot comprehend the financial prospective of the company one is channeled to invest in.

Since there are no harbingers, how does one select an equity or investment instrument? Well, here is the standard institutional response. Diversify and invest for the long-term…that’s the standard answer. This is the traditional answer because all of the licensed brokers, on-the-street stock pinking pundits, and genuine geniuses are really nothing more than professional guessers. The only true and tested method of picking whether a stock or commodity will appreciate or depreciate is after the event. Post betting is however not only very difficult from a working practical perspective but illegal.

Today’s smart bet is gold. A commodity whose mainstay value (popularly pronounced) is as a hedge against fiat currency. Well, I have always found that an interesting evaluation. No one is going to take their futures gold contract, gold coins, or bulk gold bullion down to the store to buy a loaf of bread without first converting the gold into fiat currency. Therefore, when the collective one(s) sells (in volume) one’s gold in order to buy bread the price of gold will drop as it exchanges itself into fiat currency. If that is so then I find it difficult to understand the difference of buying gold than buying IBM stock or any equity for that matter. The objective is to purchase a value that appreciates while still retaining marketable liquidity.

Now there are those that profess that gold is the only true value. And when Armageddon rages across the land gold will prevail as the only true commodity with surety; hmm…If it comes to that I don’t think the prevailing commodity with surety will be gold-I think it will be lead.

In closing, those who are vested in the equity market hang-in there another Phoenix is close at hand-the election of 2012. This nation of ours is the greatest consumer nation that has ever existed. And one more comforting note, we have the most lethal armed forces that have ever existed. These forces are distributed around the globe. In the end of the end, in any scale of meaningful measurement, we are Hercules and the world depends on us to hold them up high above the chaos which would surely develop if there were no United States of America.