Authored by William Robert Barber

Absurd means ridiculous, bizarre, even illogical and unreasonable; by adding a suffix to this word, such as an ity or ness, the adverb absurd, is now a noun, the meaningful change being a grammatical differing and the phonetics of pronunciation. In other words, aside from applying the proper of the two words in the correct application there really is little difference between absurd and absurdity.

Now to metaphorically compare the infinitesimal difference between absurd and absurdity to Gingrich and Romney I consider their disparity of prospective of equal difference. If the Republicans set Ron Paul’s governing thoughts and policies aside there is not much space of difference between the other three candidates. Agreed that one could make the argument that one is more of this and less of that, certainly Gingrich’s personal and professional baggage stand out.  I would assume the result of a lifetime in politics and broken marriages has the potential to create chaos, mistakes, and regrets. Nevertheless, withstanding his public purge of sinfulness and actions that were just plain stupid, one understands the why fore of his disinclination for further confessions or admissions of palpable wrongfulness. After all his political rival of the present, the one possibly waiting in the future, and the media’s insatiable appetite for more Gingrich flagellation are an effective deterrents to further discloser. Gingrich’s problem is that a great deal of his political and private life is documented. And as we all realize, over time, change of mind, even heart, often leads to change of ideals and ideas. To error or change an opinion seems perfectly human; of course if Gingrich seeks understanding for such he should not charge Romney as a deceitful liar because he has done the very same.

The attack on Bain Capital was classic stupid and a perfect example of Gingrich’s pliable rhetoric costumed to fit an ill conceived result. Accusing Romney of religious intolerance because he vetoed a bill, that was in its finality overturned, to have taxpayers finance kosher kitchens are another instance of a politician denigrating one’s stature. His campaign manager(s) must think the Jewish peoples of Florida are particularly dumb.    

Romney governed a liberal State one does wonder how, running as a Republican, he ever got elected. I do think that a governor has that chief executive experience and the combining of such with private enterprise is a solid resume for any presidential candidate. However, I am not please with the way his campaign conducted the Iowa and New Hampshire primary; gong after Gingrich with such personal lustful vindictiveness simply created, to the public’s dismay and Obama’s reelection committee’s delight, a vengeful Gingrich. Armed with disrespect and distortion Romney attacked Gingrich’s record as Speaker of the House; purposefully, with malice of forethought, Romney maligned Gingrich’s many political accomplishments. These tactics are in the least disconcerting to the faithful as well as independent voters. Although I am not sure if this type of campaign strategy should be blamed upon the electorate or the politician such behavior is ignoble and effective.

Obama and his loyalist are a formable force; if he can split the Republican effort to unseat him he wins. The way the Republicans are projecting their vitriol for their own upon the nation’s viewers, listeners, and readers the closer they are getting to the descriptive absurd and absurdity.  


Authored by William Robert Barber

Can conservative ideology, by means measurable, (an election) successfully challenge the ideas of the liberal progressive philosophy? In other words, is conservative political ideology able, founded solely on the merits of its principles, to persuade its way into voter acceptance? Noting that the voter must withstand and decipher the bellows and illusions cast by a candidate’s rhetorical eloquence, personal charm, and charismatic presence. Is it reasonably possible for a voter inclusive of the plethora of scurrilous accusations and the often voluminous proliferation of meaningless misdirection offered by the opposition able to acknowledge with gravitas the meaningfulness of conservative ideology? Is it achievable for a citizen to put aside the subjective-superfluous in favor of the objective-substantive?

Further, while on the pathway to impassive contemplation, one wherein the basis of deduction is factually driven, can the voter disregard the instinctual sway of a predetermined mindset? Is it credible to believe that considering the weight of peer and family pressure, as well as, traditional beliefs that a citizen could cast a vote on the basis of sustentative evidence even if that evidence was the contrary of their ingrained inspiration?

Respective of intellect’s two remarkable derivatives, curiosity and imagination, conversion from either a conservative or liberal ideology to the other is atypical. For the human psyche to willingly facilitate a dramatic adaptation or revision of an heretofore intrinsic political ideology is almost as likely as Nancy Pelosi becoming a Republican; historicity has verified that the resilience of a preformed opinion is stubbornly unyielding.

But then facts, good sense, prudence, and palpable evidence to the contrary of a closely held belief have the power to convert the most ardent liberal progressive to finally see the way and the truth. Well, there is the requirement of the conservative persuader to demonstrate a cogent explanation; noting that, all such explanations requires in the first cause, a cognitive, rational, and reasonable recipient.    

This next election will answer many of the questions presented. Will the populous vote for a government of ever-increasing largeness or one of limited size hence minimal federal power. Are the voters going to validate an entitlement society or rescind. Are we to be taxed more or taxed less. Is America’s martial reach to be enhanced or abated?

Will liberal progressivism replace all effectual vestiges of the conservative movement? Will the socialist be reelected?

All I seem to have are questions…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Every negative reference to Bain Capital’s business decisions and the financial results thereof is counter-intuitive to the electoral effort of replacing President Obama. These scurrilous accusations are pro vexing, baseless of fact, and at its core blatantly disingenuous. As explained by the Gingrich faithful the charges enunciated by Gingrich and his PAC was media placed to belittle Romney’s claim that he has proven business scruples and to specifically denounce Romney’s claim that his venture capital company created jobs. Instead, all I think that Gingrich exampled was an emotionally driven man that has difficulties matching up the Newt Gingrich he wish he was with the Newt Gingrich his record validates.

Gingrich claims his record is categorical. His achievements unambiguous; he created, under the administrations of Regan and Clinton millions of jobs. I want Gingrich and all the other politicians who make such claims that government does not create even one private sector job much less millions. There is a plethora of evidence that government: Vis-à-vis regulations, bureaucratic mambo-jambo, cronyism, and the insistence of implanting an administrative process that is arcade often ridiculous, certainly arbitrary, and specifically designed for the politically aligned, and the empowered, do displace private sector jobs and opportunities.

I do believe that Gingrich is a conservative. But not an uncompromising conservative; he was not as Speaker of the House of Representative uncompromising and as a private entrepreneur he compromised his conservative ideals to service client needs so to put a buck or two into his pocket. Ronald Regan is discerned by most current conservatives as the ideal example of a conservative. This same politician granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, raised taxes, and championed the progressive tax system. Ronald Regan was a conservative compared to Jimmy Carter; Gingrich and Romney are conservative compared to Barrack Obama. I am not suggesting that Regan, Gingrich, or Romney acted with duplicitous intent or are extraordinarily hypocritical, or purposefully deceitful. Politicians, when vying for power, as illustrated by all of these attack ads, are carnivorous. They will eat their own.

Our present legislative process of governing is more than simply ambiguous and confounding it is as with our tax system impossible for the average layperson to comprehend. If we accept the previous sentence as truthful. If all our presidential candidates bear the identical traits of embracing hyperbole, willfully committing falsities, outright lies and disinformation under the banner of standard campaign hard-knuckles politics what is believable?

All Gingrich has done is manufacture kindle for the Obama general election and the liberal progressive propaganda machine. Sadly, this professional politician who, while in private practice compromised his conservative ideals to make a buck, has turned his run for the presidency into an Obama affiliate.

Prior to his recent actions I actually had respect for the man…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Those that govern have been at each other’s throat since President Washington’s appointment of Chief Justice John Jay to the Supreme Court, the seating of the first congress and Alexander Hamilton’s insistence on establishing those certain means of paying off the federal debt. The clash between Northern and Southern politicians over where to locate the capital and the frustrated bitterness of Southern representatives when congresses’ Northern majority passed, with only six Southern votes, the Excise or Duties on Distilled Spirits Act. The tax on liquor was created to cover the cost of the federal assumption of State debts; withstanding the neediness of the legislation, the tax ignited the infamous Pennsylvania Whisky Rebellion in 1794 wherein President Washington ordered federal troops to quell and subsequently ordered the leaders hanged. Henry Lee of Virginia (later to be the father of Robert E. Lee) wrote to James Madison complaining that he would rather risk the loss of life and holdings, “than to live under the rule of a fixed insolent Northern majority.”

In the early days of the republic the precedence was forthcoming the frame of lawfulness was encapsulated within the literal interpretation of the constitution itself. Specificity as to the operating interrelationship between the three branches of government had not (with exceptions) been recognized as constitutionally conventional. Then Chief Justice John Marshall took office. The justice defined, affirmed, and created along with the Chief Justice’s original concept of judicial review, the Supreme Court as a coequal branch of government. He metaphorically in the 34 years of his tenure as Chief Justice took the bull by the horns and almost single-handedly clarified and laid the basis for American constitution law.

Surely these were tenuous times for the republic; aside from the nation’s growing pains there was the natural difficulty of implementing the words and meaningfulness of the constitution into lawfully actionable measures. Divisiveness, jealousy, and the divergent economic wherewithal between the North and South seeded resentfulness along with numerous displays of disparity over ideological viewpoints.

Considering the background of the recent French Revolution one could appreciate the Federalist inclination to strengthen the powers of the federal government. Chief Justice Marshall was a federalist, so was the person who nominated him, President John Adams, the federalist controlled all branches of government until Thomas Jefferson was elected in the presidential election of 1800. Marshall favored an expansive reading of the enumerated powers and was consistent in his demand that federal law subjugated State.

The Federalist papers authored by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay noted, “you must first enable government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

It is the “oblige it to control itself,” portion that has failed implementation. It’s feasible that the winning of the Civil War by President Lincoln’s federalist government, the governing of the defeated South by Marshall Law, and the dismantling, by the Supreme Court, (i.e. the 1873 SC interpretation of the 14th Amendment known as the “Slaughter House cases) of the 1789 constitutional limitations expressed within the principal of federalism that initiated the progressive era. An era of economic and property regulation; a time of expansive governmental mischief, wherein, clauses within the constitution originally intended to constrain, were reinterpreted, such as the Commerce Clause, as an opportunity for the federal government to grasp power not restrict.

Since the very beginning, opprobrious characters have played their part across the panorama of America’s political history. Whether their intent was honorable or dishonorable, sensible or ludicrous, right or wrong, their effect has been felt; nothing much has changed. Today the political choice in the U.S. is whether the populous will vote in Obama for a second term as president and therefore espouse, endorse, and henceforth ratify the progressive’s entitlement belief. Or whether the voters will choose an ideological belief that is founded on merit and self-determination.

As a conservative the knowing that Obama could just as easily win as loose is very discombobulating for me. All I am left with as of this date is the wish and hope that the Republicans can pull together a winner and not self-destruct before the primary is over. 


Authored by William Robert Barber

We are presently experiencing the result of politicians winning elections on promises made to those who fashioned their election. These of the elected class with a straight face boldly pronounced to labor unions, to those workers who pay no federal taxes, to the unemployable and to the unemployed, to those on welfare, to city, county and state service personnel, to one and all they promised a plethora of recompense and benefits for services rendered or simply because. All that was necessary to guarantee the fulfillment of such was to cast their vote in the proper column.

Well lo and behold today the promises of yesteryear have come to be reconciled. The foolishness of promises made has come home to roost. The counter parties of these government inspired agreements are seeking nothing less than the honoring of contractual terms and conditions. And the government must renege. Or tax more, and more, and then a little more. And these politicians who promised such assurances, well, they or their scions are still promising.

Interestingly, despite the observable fiscal impossibility of sustaining an ever appreciating public debt to fund government spending, the Democratic response is too bandy about the issue as if any further concern is wasteful effort.  Rather than reduce the expenditures or truncate the costly process of governing, the elected of the Obama brethren, would rather charge the creators of taxable revenue with “not paying their fair share.” Of course no one on the Democratic side of the isle has produced a budget; no Democrat (including the president) has come forth and declared the exactness of what is a “fair share,” and as the natural prerogative of politicians lacking the sustenance necessary for a meaningful debate demagoguery is their preferred rebuttal to any query or actionable on the subject of presenting a consequential legislative fiscal policy.

The continuum: U.S. government has over the last three years managed to produce deficits excessive of a trillion dollars a year. This debt-enhanced fiscal policy that is allowed to function free of any budgetary restraint (since there is no budget) as long as the interest on the national debt is outrageously diminutive and most importantly, if treasury auctions have many more buyers than sellers.

Remembering that our nation’s trading partners have accepted dollars as payment for products imported and sold into this country. The reason and rational of China buying our national debt is founded on the premise that such is the cost of exporting into the U.S.  This purchase of U.S. debt by China will continue and be, futuristically, directly proportional in volume to China’s ability to create and service the needs, wants, and desires of its domestic market. And of course, as long as, the U.S. is by far and away the largest economy in the world and as such the grandest consumer market that has ever existed the purchasing of U.S. debt by China and others will continue unabated.

Nevertheless, the servicing of debt has forced the Federal Reserve to print fiat currency, tons of paper currency, which has been disbursed to States, certain cities, various governmental departments, and to non-discretionary obligations. It is these disbursements; this particular servicing of excessive governmental spending that will oblige Humpty-Dumpty to fall off the wall.  

Because Obama was elected in 2008 and the Republicans took the House of Representatives in 2010 stasis is the proper descriptive of congress. Neither side can overwhelm the other, so the cognitive amongst us believe that an election will decide and thus mandate a specific vector, a unifying true course of action. But I fear that because of the negative slings and arrows that will frame this particular election the results of November 2012 will not unify, instead, the odds are in favor of ratcheting up the intensity of peoples’ ideological differing. My sense is neither political party will be prompted by the electoral results to adopt a compromise of their accepted ideological doctrine; nor will the looser submit governess to the winner.

We have layered our institutions with the excessive-burdensomeness of an ambiguously enigmatic process; a governing process that strives to traverses an all inclusive spectrum of wishing to satisfy every constituent. It is as if government was a perpetual motion machine provoked by the inertia of public opinion polls, media disposition, faceless staffers, the appointed, the influential and lots of cash.

The U.S. government has over the last one hundred years moved away from a governing by law and has instead embraced the doctrine of governing by men. This nation as never before selects laws to enforce and laws to turn a blind eye to. We have weighed and measured our fiscal ills, declared our intent to remedy, and immediately start spending more money.

We are a leaderless nation vectored by the contrarian’s of George Washington’s essence, as well as, his advice. Washington did imply that political parties will destroy the Republic…