Authored by William Robert Barber

There is an instinctive veracity that defines and distinctly identifies a leader. A leader, in the interest of attaining sustainable consensus, utilizes the persuasive qualities of prudence; a leader diligently administers the doctrine of good sense principles; a leader applies an assertive enunciation of deductive analysis; a leader so to articulate the solution, is forthright in discernment.

Where there is no leader(s) to rise above the chaos, to stand, separate, and distinguishable, as in the case of the current congress, followers tend to dilly-tally; they, as if a leave that falls from a branch, oscillate until the stronger wind vectors the descend. Followers devoid of a leader believe in short-cuts. If challenged to pronounce their bearings, they willfully concede to the effectual of the prevailing opinion. They have a tendency to huddle while espousing, with timidity, some populist fancy believing that if they just bandy words about, style and grace will suffice. Well, the contrivances of the leaderless are imaginatively multi-faceted. But for sure without a leader in congress good sense is eroded and displaced by fickleness, the governing process becomes an amoral corruptive normative; eventually, the constancy of legislative compromise deletes the meaningfulness of principles, precedence substitute’s the need for decision making, and bureaucracy impairs innovation.

Today the governing from Washington is renowned for the dilution of individual responsibility. The elected defer their individual responsibilities within the opaque decision-making enigma of governing by committee. The imaginative attorney, the harbinger-economist, and the deflector qualities of a rhetorically enhanced politician all add additional buffers so that an individual politician rarely needs to accept personal responsibility. Maybe history has been so distorted by the victor or pitifully dramatized by the loser, that even the idea of leadership is now nothing but a faint memory. Certainly, many of our politicians, in all levels and sorts have forgotten that the highest priority of public service is to serve the public good. Not to raise capital for the next campaign, create personal wealth-prestige, faithfully serve their political party, and have popular celebrities as friends.

In order to be declared a leader one requires followers; surely, not the most profound of deductions. In the early days, leaders were not difficult to measure. In other words, leaders were in front. The follower’s sensed the up close and personal sighting, hearing, intuitional and intuitive smell of a leader’s prudent tenacity. The leader’s identity was behavior-apparent; courage palpable.

In today’s world a political leader is distanced in the physical being, although technology has its (contrasting to the days of old) enhancements, the apparatus of government and the operating of governing are ambiguous, aloof, and disconcerting. The leader is no longer in front. There is no obligatory to demonstrate independence, sovereignty, and spontaneity. The pseudo-leader(s) of today are required to raise funds so to attain or retain office, look like GQ models, and speak with stylistic elocution.

Nevertheless, in the days of old as with the present, genuine leadership is recognized by one intrinsic absolute: A leader’s judgment must effectuate a positive consequence. This result, this requirement, this one distinctive-discernible-obligatory, this steadfast definitive must-do of a leader is success, achievement, and or victory.

Despite conduct and mannerisms seemingly to the contrary, Americans, traditionally are a result oriented society. Granted, in America, an increasingly heterogeneous nation but with deep and vibrate homogeneous instincts exceptions are a constant. Nevertheless in the majority respectful of nuances and subtleties that are commingled with intermediate causative expressions of anxious withdrawal, Americans will not tolerate failure. Nor will its citizens accept the sophist blend of speciousness and deception. There is no substitute for success. Withstanding the efforts of liberal progressive ideals and the nanny state influences on this country’s laws and culture America is not a: Pathetic, victimized, and aggrieved culture.

The conservative movement needs and requires a stalwart congressional brand of leadership, one that leads from the front. America necessitates a leadership of dynamic vision, leader(s) with the wherewithal to stand confident and sovereign; possessing a willful personality coupled with an inner sense of purposefulness, leadership that persuades others, leadership that establishes a political consensus of common rationale. Leadership that can defeat President Obama…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The all-encompassing unabashed role of congress is as a harvester of resources.

For congress harvesting resources for its coffer is a relentless continuum. The competitor Maximus to congress’ primary function of taxation is congress’ extraordinary ability to spend not only today’s taxpayer funds but also the taxpayer’s fund of many, many, tomorrows. Congress is a spendthrift of prodigal dimension. To exemplify, if congress sequestered one full year of this country’s GNP to pay the nation’s fiscal deficit the nation would still be in the red.

Admittedly, the state dispenses portions of the harvested funds back to the original source of taxation although at its discretion in sum and time. This remittance of original funds are distributed with prejudice and at a substantial discount. After all the state righteously declares it cost money to take from those that have and by the masterminds encapsulated within congressional committees dispense to those that need. And interestingly respective of such irrational behavior, no matter the fiscal consequences, nothing will change. Constructive change within congress is virtually impossible because term limits will never happen and the arcane almost Byzantine-like nature of the legislative process congress is not capable of rational, prudent behavior.

The State is the purest example of coercive force; it employs force to take from those that produce. The government has unmitigated influence and prestige within the offices of the Justice Department, Homeland Security, The Treasury Department, and the office of the presidency any Roman emperor or Charlemagne himself would be impressed.

For instance: The madness of having Obama and clan scurrilously attack private enterprises while taking their tax money, money that would not be paid (as taxes) if there were no profits, is demagogy at it most hypocritical worse. But notice the traction within the political spin game and now of course millionaires and billionaires are not paying their fare share. The Obama declaration is nonsensical but an excellent political misdirection, a great sound bite with great effectiveness in an election year. The Republican presidential candidates response to all of this is to personally attack each other over one stupid insinuation after another.

The government of the United States, as with all nation states, is a symbiotic enterprise founded on the premise that only the state can instill cohesive wherewithal. This is particularly true in times of emergency such as war, natural disaster, and criminal activity. The government is also considered the best means to represent the interest of the people wherein the founding belief is one of law not of men.

It is the state that feeds off of those that produce furthermore the state is never satisfied as to the number of resources it consumes. Its appetite for more is insatiable. Well what happens if those that produce don’t? Or produce somewhere other than the United States? The marketplace is global.

I once thought that the Tea Party movement would reinvigorate the congress but instead it splintered its effectiveness on the core issue of fiscal sanity and lost itself in the hedge groves and hinterland of gay marriage, evangelicalism, and infighting over whom were more conservative.

As Americans we can no longer measure the tenacity and core ethos of our citizenry as one premised on existential virtue; we have traded in that American for one wherein the latitude of individual liberty and freedom is limited to the dictates and mandates of government. Importantly about fifty percent of Americans are just fine with that new American.


Authored by William Robert Barber

An origin that complements the philosophical basis of social conservatism is the belief that the “rights of man” are derived from God. That these rights are unalienable and compose the ethos from which American exceptionalism is founded. While this defining approach to a philosophic belief is certainly a rational, even moralistically upgraded version of the past justification for attaining power: “Saint Peter by His divine will anoints me king, (pope, prince etc.,) and therefore, to defy me is to defy Saint Peter.”

Withstanding the rationally enhanced moralistically upgraded version encapsulated in the phrase “rights of man,” and aside from the hubristic inclination intrinsic to such a philosophic belief, I do believe that such a belief is the a priori of social conservatism.  

Remembering that the Declaration of Independence was written by men of fallible and morally imperfect behavior; these treasonous signers (certainly King George believed them traitors) were also men of the 18th century with all the moral and intellectual prejudice of their time. Men who, by affirming this document of independence, put at risk their reputation, property, and life. Nevertheless and inclusive of the understanding that these founding fathers inserted God and godliness into this country’s founding document there is no evidence that God was a party to these transaction; nor of Jesus Christ inspiring or motivating these actions. Indeed the forthcoming to the declaration of July 4 1776, the Constitution of The United States of America, specifically, stated the separation of church and state as a founding law of the land.

In other words, withstanding references to, innuendos of, and emphatic statements endorsing the people’s trust in God, America was founded on the concept of limited government, principled on the philosophical merits of existentialism, valuing individualism rather than collectivism, wherein individual liberty, and freedom is the highest priority of governess.     

The thesis of natural law put forward by the English political philosopher, John Locke essentially says that government derives its power from the people indeed Locke’s remedy for what the people would consider an unlawful act was to disobey. He felt the basis for such disobedience was that the State had exceeded its authority or breeched the rule of law. Now he also felt that the people should be armed so to protect their rights, explicitly, if required, to protect themselves against the absolute power of the State.

A component of theological faithfulness may include the belief that God inspires all of man’s actions; certainly, I am not one to critic such a belief. However I am skeptical that God is concerned about the day-to-day chaos of politics in particular or frankly even general human activity. Of course I do not know this conclusively it is simply my conjecture. I do know the criteria required to defeat President Obama is to positively and inclusively broaden the reach of constituents. Some of these constituents may fear an evangelist in the executive office more than Obama; or simply turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the conservative message when the message is heavily tainted with the insertion of God or godliness.

As stated more than once by the peanut gallery of pundits this next election will be the most resounding cry of the impending death of a conservative America or a joyous cry of relieve that the liberal progressive socialist was defeated. The goal is to win the election of 2012 unless there is a conservative electoral victory it matters nominal whether God is the source of the “rights of man” or not.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The political opinion landscape of America is divided almost equally between two ideological camps: One believes that government is the better choice to achieve a solution to civil issues and problems (better than private or community action) and the other that believes that government intrusion and largess create the greater part of the problem. One encourages the growth of governmental incursion into the affairs of person and business, and the other believes (withstanding the effect) that the rightful role of government in person and business — less a narrow definition of societal protection — is limited.

The possibility of persuading a citizen of either camp to change their political belief for the other is remote. Therefore, the next national election (or so the experts suggest) will be decided by those who are not ideologically driven. These voters are classified as independents; those not swayed by ideals as much as finding satisfaction with the answer to the independents’ mainstay question: “Yes, that sounds good, but specifically, what’s in it for me?”

The ones of faithful allegiance to the thesis of a largess government such as: The academically enlightened wonks, the genius aptitude exceptional, sometimes referred to as media celebrities, the liberal progressive political class, known today as the modern noblesse oblige, the societal of kind hearts and coronets, the contrarians of good sense and deductive inquiry, and the fanciful equalitarian whose intellectual curiosity never wanders beyond the boundaries of contentment. They have identified the problem, noted the theoretical basis of the cause, and defined the solution.   

For the ideologically inclined progressives the problem is this: There are federal fiscal deficits and income disparities; both are the causation for the predominance of social, economic, and educational injustices that define Americans’ concern.

The theoretical basis of these disparities: The fiscal deficits are not caused by excessive government spending. But instead by not taxing the rich a morally fair, and reciprocally equitable percentage of their personal income; the progressives also point out that unfair taxation is cause by corporations advantaging the current taxation system with gimmicky tax loop holes and the constant prodding by their well financed lobbyist for special interest concessions.

The solution as displayed within Obama’s recent budgetary offering is to take more from those that have so to give to those that do not. In function, the meaningfulness of the Obama offering is to utilize the government as the trusted intermediary, the utility, to inject coercive legalities.  Which is the practice or rule of a progressive tax policy; Obama’s intent is to disproportionately take from the one and have the government decides who should be the recipient of such funds. Their Robin Hood spread the wealth methodology is founded on the precepts of liberal progressive ideology and are synonymous with their ideal of fairness.

Of course as experienced over the last hundred years, what actually occurs is the government acting as the intermediary or dispenser/operator siphoning original dedicated funds. These siphoned funds are always above pre-operational budgetary estimates wherein the program therefore requires either deficit funding, loans, or extra-accounting supplements. Additionally, as exampled with social security, amendments to initial legislation increase governmental obligations, a quagmire of regulatory minefields stymie well meaning intent, and as a result each year more tax monies are required. Unlike the managing of the congressional budget I am not just making this up as I go.

But then, so say the politicians, why get all tied down with facts and evidence… they know they are never elected on the facts of the matter. Politicians are elected on the perception of the facts of the matter.