Authored by William Robert Barber

My first reaction to the Chief Justice’s reasoning was emptiness, the forming of a void, evolving into an irritant that moved into an aggravation that stemmed from deep inside my bowels, and finally, a conclusive irreconcilable loss akin to being mortally wounded. I then sought an explanation.  

The explanation was that President Obama and his progressives had won the day.

In essence Chief Justice Roberts believes that congress has the unlimited right to tax every American citizen ad nauseam. Further, though lacking the evidence of (verbatim) constitutional law, he the Chief Justice, (at his discretion) appendages the constitution by crafting ObamaCare to his liking so that he can provide the decisive vote with the court’s liberal progressives.  

Well, it does no good for conservatives to rethink or rehash what clearly is now the law of the land. We have only one alternative: The conservatives must elect a majority in the House, the Senate, and the Executive Office. To fall short is for this nation of enterprise to convert to a nation of socialists that simply enable the entitlement class and unions to the meaningfulness of individual liberty and freedom.

This is the most critical election since the election of 1800. If this election cedes to President Obama, a doctrine of liberal progressivism will blanket the nation; the result of such is viewable in California, New York City, San Francisco, and the countries that are members of the EU: All of these entities, despite their policy of high taxation, are sorely lacking in good sense, fiscal reliability, and as a consequence cash. Their answer to enlarging government has always been to increase the tax on some class, some product, or some service.

I am hopeful that the American people will rise to the occasion and convincingly rout the progressives out of elective office. And though I do not like the idea of relying on hope, presently that is all I have.


Authored by William Robert Barber

I am perturbed, a bit confused, and certainly disappointed not just by the general thrust of President Obama’s leadership but also the blatantly obvious politically motivated antics of his underlings.

The ubiquitously omnipotent national news media, the very same medium that utilizes the conveyance of print, radio, and television, (a 24/7 effort) is ostensibly charged, to explicitly and implicitly disseminate information to the public; this dissemination of noteworthy political affairs, though delivered with discretion, should either be delivered void of partisan persuasion and ideological prejudice (quite possibly an impossible task) the particular disseminator therefore should openly and transparently declare their political ideals.  

From the outside looking in it seems that the producers, writers, and presenters of news media are in a loosely sorted telepathic collusion to disseminate their brand of controversial, ideologically inspired, absolutely opinionated intuit of political righteousness. They as if a priest endowed with the right to bestow absolution have forgiven and blessed the president for his faux pas, multiple oral distortions of the factual, and policy failures both domestic and foreign.

My confusion is affixed on trying to understand the logic or is it the illogic of the liberal progressive agenda. If taxes are derived from the profits of business and President Obama scurrilously derides not just business but the capital markets in general. If the president in celebratory coordination with his progressive cohorts relentlessly tags onto business excessive if not erroneous fees, additional taxes, and regulatory obstacles as if to flagellate business for being business. If the president justifies the ever growing cost of governing by simplifying such cost by taxing the rich eventually there will be fewer rich to tax but the cost of governing, being a constant, will still be growing. In other words, how in the name of sanity could fifty-percent of the people want to reelect this president?

The president has decided to not enforce immigration laws, he has decided that marriage is no longer the traditional descriptive, he has affirmed into law, as a component of ObamaCare the individual mandate,  President Obama has done his very best to change this country from its historical basis to a land that is crossed between Norway and France.

But Hollywood loves the guy, and certainly, a respectable number of Americans think that he deserves a second term; these are the reasons I am disappointed. I cannot understand how — much less why — so many of my fellow Americans voted for him in the first cause… but after seeing what he has done, my question is why in the world of sensibility would they vote him back into office?!


Authored by William Robert Barber

SECRETARY CLINTON: Since peace, except as an interlude, has never existed, how could this nation state with reams of evidence to the contrary actually believe in the status of peace?  What has existed however, for thousands of years, is violent conflict. If the historical record documents violent conflict as a commonality of human endeavor, one that breaches all cultures, every language, and the hill and dale of the world’s geography, why in the name of prudence do we create a foreign policy whose goal is peace?

Do we require self-deception? Is it that turning a blind eye to the palpable actions of the Russians in Syria makes the world safer? Is President Obama so naïve?

Why is it that we Americans cannot accept the world as it is? Why do we need to create a world that we wish it was? Do we actually believe that if upon being slapped by an aggressor the response should be to turn our cheek? Or that once we allow ourselves to be bullied the bully will stop stealing our lunch money?   

Righteousness and fairness left to their own indulgences are fanciful ideals of the world as we wish it was. The world as it truly is requires a sword, shield, and lance; but, most importantly, reality requires leadership that possesses the unhesitating will to act.  

We Americans need to understand our presence: We are the dominant power. We are the leader of the free world. That is we are the dominant power and the world’s leader if we have the will to accept our position and act accordingly; but if we beg Pakistan to pretty pretty please let us transport our trucks through their territory (so we can logistically supply our military efforts in Afghanistan) then we are as weak a nation as we allow ourselves to be.


PRESIDENT OBAMA: In direct contradiction to the spirit of the nation’s constitution government(s) have taken on the role of mother, father, and sage. The government wants to do all the thinking for us. In the name of protection it will mandate what we cannot inhale, inject, or swallow. And of course, once monopolized and heavily taxed, the government allows us citizens to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, and gamble.

Interestingly, the Obama government is not satisfied with the precedence of government protectorate. Oh no, the President wants to impose a greater percentage of a citizen’s income so to finance his ideal of fairness exampled by the infamous Obama distribution of wealth formula. Certainly the nation’s number one liberal progressive encourages the hiring of more government workers, and he must somehow find a way to revive the private and public unions. Then of course he must convince the “have-nots” to vote to increase taxes upon those that have; my goodness, this president has his tasks laid out for him! But then, he is the man who attained the highest office in the land founded on the premise of hope.

Tax and spend is — and has been — the liberal rant since the early days of the republic. The policy has never functioned in the economic interest of the nation; no matter such is a mainstay of liberal progressivism. Well the good news is, under the adage of do-no-harm, President Obama is too busy campaigning and raising money to manage or lead the government… but then of course there is Senator Reid…


Authored by William Robert Barber

In the beginning, welfare and the concept of entitlement did not exist; aside from charity, if one did not sow one did not reap. But then, there came the progressive politicians of 1913 into being who ratified the sixteenth amendment to the constitution and the initiation of individual taxation was now the law of the land.

But not to worry, the law was merciful; the law was progressive and had built-in discretion: The individual income tax did not apply to all citizens (sound relevant to the present). Congress established a new personal income tax with rates ranging from 1 to 7 percent on income in excess of $3,000 for a single individual. So if one did not make over this minimum of $3,000 one could set aside one’s worry. One would benefit from the distribution of taxation without any regard to participation. In other words, all of you Americans making less than the minimum (hmm, that was the majority), surely you are going to allow your fellow Americans to pay your fare. After all, the citizens of the time must have thought, politicians (or was it pseudo-statesmen) endorse this individual tax policy as only fair and reasonable. Besides effectually, in the finality, what’s 1 to 7 percent of these peoples’ income?

It was not as if the federal government would be taking up to 35+ percentage of an individual’s income or that States would bile on. Or that I am in danger of paying any monies to the government. Surely, it’s not a signal for the formation of a coercively inclined federal agency to enforce (at a cost to taxpayers) a collection intermediary. Certainly the sixteenth amendment did not induce a benignly corrupt executive and congressional branch control of tax distribution wherein the political party in power would favor their cohorts over the minority party. “No, of course not”, the duck quacked.

In the days of old when ships of the line “cleaved the brine with pinions afloat” — a bit of Herman Melville — children were cautioned by the mother of prudence and good sense, “now remember Jack and Jill, consumption must be well proportioned and commensurate to productivity”. In those days the only safety net was family and charity. But even for the poor of yesteryear there was a cultural indifference to being poor. The idea was to move oneself upwardly into the economic main fare and one did what needed to be done to achieve such an effect. If one needed to work two jobs to attain one’s goal, then so be it.

But today, well really ever since the end of WW II, Jack and Jill may listen… but their intent was not to enable comprehension. The sage of reason may whisper in their ear, “nothing in the legitimate world is free.” But the sage could not overcome the unreasonable addiction to consumption that was aided and assisted by the politicians’ promise that taxing the rich rectifies the cost of consumption. For the progressive the answer to any fiscal short-fall is to tax those that have the money. Such remedies are only music to a fool’s ear.


Authored by William Robert Barber

I do believe that this forthcoming electoral contest is a confrontation of profoundly contrary ideological forces. The contesters are divided in the sum of their intent as well as the scope and meaningfulness of how they envision governess. I believe the divide is so divisible that the eventual looser will not be able to reconcile its loss. The substantive counter-perspectives that define the differing political socio-economic beliefs of the Democratic and Republican parties are so profoundly divisive and isolatable that the electoral loser will favor a functional impairment of governing rather than compromise to the consequence of their loss.

Niccolo of Florence would recognize this present atmosphere of political intolerance and disrespect as the prompt to necessitate a policy of win-the-desired result no matter the means.

Now if intolerance, disrespect, and vitriolic behavior omnipresent in today’s political milieu were this nation’s only issue of concern I’d be seeking resolution within the election process. However, the preceding descriptive is not the problem. It is instead a variety of symptoms. The problem includes the frustration of dealing with a government that has abandoned its constitutional tenets, the spirit of its principle reasoning of creating a republic, and a conspicuous minority that has traded its sense of self-worth for (an ever growing in cultural acceptance) the indiscernible belief of socio-economic entitlement. Additionally, Obama wishes to transform America into a European model of governess and there is confusion as to what that exactly means.

The populous must understand that since the creation of the State, governments have overstepped their authority of governess. This statement of fact is founded on voluminous examples of historical evidence. Exceeding the authority originally granted is the behavior of governments because governments are intrinsically corrupt, devious, duplicitous, and ominous. Government is naturally foreboding. Government is not design to practice trust and fidelity; government is design to grow and exercise coercive force.

The political leadership of the government is purposed to maintain its grip on power; aside from promises to the contrary leadership is only interested in its majority status. Therefore, leadership must always be treated with askance, hesitation, and a-prove it to me mentality. This is where the damage is done to the Republic-for only the people can force leadership to act with allegiance to the laws of the land and limit (as much as possible) the inherent corruptive nature of governing.

The Obama’s of the world favor the government to do all the thinking and acting; while the conservatives believe in the value of the individual and therefore distrust government, their wonks, their good intentions, and their bureaucracy. The Obama disciples of progressivism believe government is better disposed to validate economic priorities, cultural values, and national righteousness. The contraries to this particular belief is the conservatives who sense that government is at the service of the people not the other way around.

The renaissance of American traditional values such as self-worth, self-reliance, and the integrity intrinsic with earning one’s way in the world without government interference or financial support is one of the results of voting for Mitt Romney verses President Obama. This forthcoming election is going to have an conclusive effectual on the meaningfulness of America for the next several generations, this election is very important.