Authored by William Robert Barber

The Congressional Budget Office has spoken… with a caveat or more the sage(s) of Washington have foretold (to the nation) a fiscal eventuality; this foretelling is labeled “The 2013 Tax Cliff.” The harbingers of the CBO have predicted the economic consequences of two fiscal possibilities: The first being founded on congress extending the so-called “Bush tax cuts” and the second to be if congress allowed these tax cuts to expire.

The CBO warning is that the economy could fall into dire condition sometime in 2013 if taxes wold rise and spending fell. The wizards of the budget office adamantly suggest, “Such fiscal tightening will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be called a recession if taxes rise and spending falls on schedule in January.”   Further, those that are in the business of predicting, declare that unemployment will increase to about 9%.

Interestingly, economists of renown as well as administrations of both political parties are insistent on the truthfulness of the “multiplier” effect wherein $1.00 of federal funding creates $1.50 of gross revenue; I assume in their view, summoning the belief in indeterminism and chance, and the probabilities of complex systems rendering in its finality an empirical verdict carry intellectual validity at Harvard, Princeton, and the ideological beliefs of liberal progressivism.  

Naturally, the progressive politicians just love the very idea of the “multiplier” concept. They consider such a solution in keeping with enhancing the feasibility of government intrusion into the classroom, the individual’s personal space, and private enterprise. The Obama-Read-Pelosi team of political elites blend in well with the soothsayers, Krugman-Geithner-Summers; all these folks are good at is pushing the economic results out into the futuristic stratosphere with promises of better days if only more government funded stimulus was legislated.

The feds having established and developed extra-statutory means to falsify the nation’s balance sheet with super-enriched debt-liquidly coupled with monetizing that very debt is now poised, with an Obama election victory to finalize the impairment of this nation state. Outrageously, this debt has the viability and market acceptance simply because there are buyers standing in line to purchase U.S. debt instruments. The willingness of buyers to purchase is based on a number of all-important principles of understanding:

1, Chinese goods must be purchased by the USA

2. The USA must be the most powerful nation on earth; by air, land, and sea

3. Russia must remain a threat to Europe, North Korea must intimidate Japan, and China must continue to advance its marital prowess in Asia

4. Trade to remain free of excessive restrictions and is exercised worldwide

5. The federal government must curtail self-indulgent spending, rein in entitlements, spread the tax base, lower taxes on individuals and enterprise, and repeal and replace ObamaCare

Economists create models to help forecast the future… Well, the economy is a capricious of intent, inconsistent in pattern, indecisive as to appeal, and assessable to the point of indeterminate. Good luck with your models…

Seems to me that when one spends more than one earns borrowing is an unsustainable measur


Authored by William Robert Barber

“At the close of the Constitution convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.”

Simply defined a republic (of the United States of America) is a constitutionally derived government wherein the power of governance is held by the citizens entitled to vote directly or indirectly through their elected representatives.  This nation’s constitution was constructed specifically to deny the executive branch omnipotent power; congress was purposefully divided into two houses of representation and the Supreme Court, though justices require senate approval, was structured to avoid political influence or pressure by having the justices serve life terms. The uniquely American system of checks and balances was tantamount with the 1789 concept of limited government power wherein each branch of government was restrained and purposely did not reign supreme over the other.

After a couple of hundred years plus, the response to Franklin’s challenge to Mrs. Powel is that the nation could not keep its status as the republic of original intent: As with all preceding governments since ancient Rome, original intent was converted, dismissed, and resubmitted with caveats and amendments or replaced by the finesse of legalized sleight-of-hand.

There are many causes, reasons, and excuses as to the loss of original intent… but if one was to be extracted from the many to form the critical it would be the following:

The first is the inclination of those that govern to fashion governing in the image of their ideology first and the tenets of the constitution last; and if not persuaded firstly by their ideology, then it is their personal perspective of righteousness, their egocentric wanting enthusiastically seeking applause; or their craving for immortal achievement and recognition.

There are numerous examples of extra-constitutional actions by the elected; forthwith are two:

Presidents John Adams and his Federalist within congress enacting the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition’s Act, and Thomas Jefferson affirming the Louisiana Purchase without the approval of the Senate; all such actions undercut and evaded their oath to uphold the constitution. The reason for such extra-constitutional action is obvious: The elixir of power dominates over many a president and congressperson, not to mention those non-elected appointees that wield immense influence within the authority intrinsic to governess. The will to ‘get it done,’ be it Machiavellian or the sweetness of rhetorical style, will always dominate the constitutional process; therein lies the issue of concern and the cause for the dismemberment of the republic as originally conceived.

The second of causes, reasons, and excuses is taxation; as so eloquently stated by Daniel Webster, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” In 1913 the 16th amendment to the constitution was ratified and the meaningfulness of the republic of original intent was diverted into the sector of a republic awaiting permanent deletion. When this amendment was adopted, wherein the congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source…the idea of limited government died and the concept of forever-encroachment by the governing authorities on personal liberties and freedom began. 

The unlimited capacity of government to extract any percentage of a citizen’s personal income affords government a predominance that surely was never thought possible by the Founders. The ability for unlimited taxation far exceeds the government authority required for implementing and delivering services. Because of the 16th amendment to the constitution taxation is a weapon used by congress and the executive branch to subordinate and compel citizens to its will.

The harvesting of tax revenue by necessity creates a coercive extension of the federal, as well as, State power. But it is the distribution of taxes collected that enables political, economic, and societal corruption. Political favoritism is always a player when taxes collected is distributed. This corruption could have never have been a factor if the 16th amendment had NOT been ratified.

Evidence suggest that the larger the government the more grandiose and entrenched its bureaucracy. Correspondingly, a government other than one limited in scope, power, and means will always, unavoidably, abate the ethos of individualism; such a government will obligingly retard personal liberty and freedom. The government’s ability to tax at will has aggravated the sagacity of The Bill of Rights; it has shifted the ultimate power of governess from the people to the government and therefore from a republic to one of statism.

The third cause, reason, and excuse for the loss of the republic’s original intent has been because of the explicit exploitation of governmental operations by the legal and political class. It is these practitioners of the dark arts that have intentionally interfused the process of legalize-ambiguity into the mainstream of the legislative result. Regulators have lobbied politicians to purposefully injection enigmatic language within the nation’s laws so to establish themselves (the regulators) as the ultimate arbitrator of the law’s meaningfulness. All of these actions were and are intentionally designed by those in power, those close to those in power, and the always looking out for themselves appointed government bureaucrats charged with the tasks of transforming the simple and mundane into the complicated and extra-ordinary.  

The forth and the most notorious reason for the loss of the republic is the apathy of the ordinary citizen. The average citizen of a republic must participate in the national debate and they rarely do. They must be concerned with the political events and feel an obligation to be engaged and informed nevertheless with noted exceptions the voting populous sit on the sidelines seemingly satisfied to be enchanted by the spectacle whiles feeding on bread, beer, and games.

So no, Doctor Franklin, we could not keep the republic of 1789; indeed, the federal government of 2012 would be unrecognizable to the Founders…


Authored by William Robert Barber

A large amount of multimedia effort is devoted to the squabbling between equally smart persons from divergent political perspectives. For the most part, the counter-parties all went to the best schools, were feed ample amounts of protein, loved by their parents, have a loving personal supportive family, and think of themselves as people doing the right thing. Many are licensed professionals, proprietors of Masters Degrees, PhD’s, and veterans boasting decade’s of real-life experience. Despite all such commonalities these propagators of differing ideologues ardently and often abruptly disagree on the most fundamental basis of political discourse.

How in the world could two graduates from world class educational institutions diametrically disagree on politics, societal issuers, cultural values, legal interpretive(s), and a long list of other important concerns? How does one find the truth of the matter if both sides of an issue are so balanced in credibility?     

I think the answer starts to reveal itself upon defining the difference between one’s faithful belief and one’s reconciliation to believe.

A persuasion (one of many) in the forming on one’s political ideology is conditioned on the milieu of predeterminations; meaning determinations that are founded by a thesis or basis of a belief from a persuasive family member, respected peer, a teacher, and other such influences that are inclusive of one’s sphere.  

For example, acolytes and apparatchik’s process inductively induced information via a guiding principle of devout belief. A belief is a faithful conviction of righteous certainty that does not necessarily require deductive analysis, logic, or fact.  A belief is conjecture; a facile anecdote often emitting from a factoid void of evidence. A belief is a contrivance articulated as an irrefutably definitive. A belief can be as truthfully certain as magnetic north.

On the other hand, to believe requires the experience of a phenomenon of observation wherein the process of deductive analysis, logic, and fact induced by the measure of qualitative and quantitative is the required methodologies to achieve a conclusive believe.  

To subject a closely held belief to the deductively applied rudiments necessary in order to establish to believe and reject a belief is as difficult as it is for Sisyphus to roll the boulder to the top of the mountain; asking Putin to restore western style democracy in Russia or for Syria’s magister to stop killing his own people.

Now cometh Obama, President of the United States, for this politician the differing of definition between belief and believe is irrelevant. What matters is winning the election. For this politician it is unimportant if one speech contradicts another. That misdirection, exaggeration, or outright lies are incorporated and intrinsic to his campaign’s release of information to the public. For the president it is perfectly fine to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to disregard. For President Obama winning this forthcoming election is an essential objective in the pursuit of one specific goal: To eradicate existentialism as a part of being an American so to impose an egalitarian entitlement state upon this nation’s culture wherein the liberal progressive theology of social justice replaces the heretofore tradition of, “a nation of laws not of men.”

The president is a political economic apostle of dirigisme or planification. He is a politician-protagonist obsessed by his image and character. A socialist of the French tradition; a man infatuated by the axiomatic power of his persuasion, a man who considers his reign as president the Pièce de résistance of political generalship.

In the election of 2008 President Obama beguiled the voters if reelected after almost four years of actual experience then indeed this nation has taken an abrupt left turn from its historical preference and will suffer the consequences of such a reelected Obama for a very long time. Anyway that’s a belief I can believe in…