Authored by William Robert Barber  

This immigration issue and proposed legislative solution(s) that’s being bandied about by the Senate is traversing from confusion into lunacy. I can’t seem to discern what these senators are legislatively contemplating: The conservatives and the Republicans want to “secure the border;” the liberal progressives and the Democrats favor a more or less open border policy. Each inference has a sort-of creditable source that evidences or at least renders sufficient intellectual comfort and political cover so each perspective can affirmatively bellicose the wrongheadedness of the counterparty.

There are those that suggest that because our nation has millions of illegal/non-documented immigrants within its borders (roughly 60% from Mexico) in a practical sense amnesty already exists. There are others who have reams of mathematical calculations bequeathed from the Congressional Budget Office proving, well, estimating that legislative amnesty would be a financial plus to the nation.  In sympathy to the idea of granting legal status to immigrants from south of the border Catholic institutions present moral maximums — of course the majority of these immigrants are Catholic and God knows the Catholic Church needs more worshipers. In alignment with such sympathy is the Democratic Party; like the self-serving inclinations of the Catholic Church their reckoning is that the super-majority of these people will vote liberal-progressive.

 Marco Rubio and the coalition of Republicans who favor the current rendition of “a path to citizenship,” have been pushed and pulled, cajoled, manipulated and yes, I believe tricked, into collectively justifying an unworkable solution for a problem that is incorrectly assessed. Firstly, if I was born poor in Mexico I would by whatever means available (knowing that expensive and time consuming legal means are not an option) venture north into the United States. Secondly, no fence nor any other kind of physical challenge would stop my need to improve the lives of my family. I do not think I am unique in this regard.

Legislators have been kicking this issue around the corner and past the bend in the road forever or at least so it seems. The newest proposal is to spend billions of dollars — not pesos, dollars! — to keep one of Mexico’s most profitable exports (its people) out of the U.S. The idea of spending billions to keep people south of our border is ridiculous. It so stupid that one could just as ridiculously suggest: Instead of building a fence, hiring thousands of guards, and installing mechanisms for surveillance monitoring the USA should simply pay each Mexican that earns less than $3,000 USD a year an annual fee for every year they can document they have never left their country.

The Mexican government imports valuable dollars into Mexico from its blatant, professionally marketed promotion of aiding and abetting the illegal trafficking of their citizens into the United States. Why we do not charge Mexico a fee for every Mexican illegal found trying to cross the border and for everyone deported back to Mexico is beyond my comprehension.

As previously stated, I believe the problem has been assessed incorrectly; whatever the number of undocumented people there are in our nation and no matter where they came from because we are an open society, a rich, and a free country, the mechanism to track down and ‘capture’ an undocumented immigrant is limited. No matter the rudiments of any particular legislative “path to citizenship,” the fact is, America is a favored destination and will always have millions of noncompliant immigrants within its borders. Whether there is a guest worker program, E-Verify, or strict ICE enforcement — there will always be those that choose not to comply.

 Obviously, Mexico and Canada are prolific highly profitable trading partners. These countries are our friends and allies. Canada to the north and Mexico to the south; both countries are intimately engaged by family, western values, and years of commercial interface. Consequently, as with Cuba, our immigration policy for these neighbors mandate a specific differing than others. Our immigration policy as to our closest geographic neighbors should be simple, precise in scope, and wholly manageable; therefore, America requires a minimum of standards that are consistent with our national interest. 

The answer to our neighbors’ illegal venture north is not a fence but a bilateral agreement permitting American companies to own controlling interest within Mexico’s commercial infrastructure and property. If Americans could invest into Mexico as Mexicans can invest in America there would be few Mexicans interested in leaving home and hearth to venture north. Presently, this normal course of business investment is denied to American citizens.

Whatever the result, nothing will stop a person from striving to improve their life and the lives of their family members. Instead of building a fence we should be investigating ways to open our arms.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The governing process in this country of ours has drifted from a democratic republic wherein the relationship between the central government and the states was manifested in the constitutional covenants of federalism and a system of checks and balances into a federal republic wherein the implied and explicit power of the executive branch is not only dominant but all powerful and sovereign.

Since the presidency of Wilson and onward the executive office has predominantly enunciated its dominance over Congress; presidents can effectually commit armed forces into combat, for years, without a declaration of war, the executive can issue a declaration of consequential action by simply calling for an executive order; it can evade Senate confirmation by appointing a shadow cabinet, and as recent developments verify, the president can effectively stonewall Congress’ obligatory of checks and balances oversight. The president as exampled by the National Labor Relations Board breaches the meaningfulness of the Constitution as well as precedence with unilateral appointments while Congress is in session. Considering the cover-up in Benghazi, the willful scofflaw of the IRS, the Justice Department’s behavior in ‘Fast and Furious,’ the highly questionable evasion into private phone records and emails of AP and Rosen, and the obviously bogus predicate designed so to affirm a judge’s order — no reasonable, rational citizen could possibly trust any government.   

And if that is not enough evidence of a way too powerful presidency, the executive branch can direct the enhancement of a secret surveillance directive that electronically monitors, then stores the very same data on American citizens into perpetuity. Interestingly, the proponents of this swear lawfulness; after all, they declare Congress and its elected representatives voted for the Patriot Act and all of its relevant agreements. I counter with only one significant: Are these the very same representatives that passed ObamaCare without reading its content?

Yes, I understand: it’s a complicated world; I also know for certain that political ends and self-serving dynamics are often at the root of governmental action. Those in power want to remain, those out of power want to attain, and in politics which is the earnest of governing, the means to which power is attained or maintained is only relevant if one is caught.

America has drifted into an authoritarian state wherein the central government controls the States’ once sovereign status. Where appointed senior officials of the IRS can dance around Congressional oversight and a noteworthy employee can declare the fifth because to do other would be incriminating. Eric Holder has lied to Congress on more than one occasion; Hillary Clinton is unknowing on Benghazi, and the president is informed of current events per the television. Hmm…  


Authored by William Robert Barber

Fearfulness is frequently an injudicious facilitator of imprudent action which often results in a consequence contrary to expectancy. Fear is a tool used by politicos and oppressors. Successfully exploited it always abates liberty and increases the power of government. Fear will initiate marshal law and effectively rescind individual rights in favor of authoritarian rule. In its finality fear is a grand hoax perpetrated by the knowing,  powerful, and  ambitious to psychologically flagellate the weak, intimidate the strong, and appease their affiliates.

On 9/11 terrorists attacked this nation and thousands died. And as tragic as that day was, the real tragedy was this nation’s response — the immediate curtailment of our liberties.

Today we learned that the federal government is harvesting voluminous amounts of data on Americans because “we fear another terrorist attack”. Fear has prompted an Orwellian policy of incursion, blatant disregard of the 4th amendment of the constitution, plausible intimidation, and the blessings of congress. Now it really does not take an extraordinarily high IQ to master the idea that if a government run program was secret and the essence of secrecy required limited access, how does congress judge not only its effectiveness but also its constitutional compliance?  

Well, the fear mongers have the answer, “trust me I know what I am doing and if I don’t know what I’m doing well I personally know the guy who does”.

There have been many, many, instances of government abuse, incompetence, denial, and downright unconstitutional actions. The government is managed by human beings. The very same humans that interned Japanese-Americans after looting all of their possessions, locked up American Indians in reservations, invaded Mexico, and took Panama from Columbia. I could go on but I think my point is secure.

No, I do not trust this government  — or any government for that matter — and if I want to hold my individual liberty dear, my distrust is sensible. Please name a government, any government anywhere in all of history, that has not exampled corrupt practices, incompetent management, and served some perceived self-interest over the common good.

The Patriot Act is not patriotic; it is the injudicious imprudent action of a fearful state of mind and being.  I will not cede another word from the Bill Of Rights nor surrender more of my American breed freedoms because of a possible threat from an Islamic Jihadist.   

No, federal government, you cannot limit my liberty or freedom for the sake of fearfulness!


Authored by William Robert Barber


The politico-syntax of Obama’s press offices and spokespersons when addressing the most recent scandals are effectually reengineering the process of communicative deliberation. Within the Obama circle of ‘persons in the know,’ embellishments are nothing more than meaningless embroidery, hues of puffery, and rational indulgences for the sake of definition.  Exaggerations are simple overstatements designed primarily to make items of interest more noticeable. Outright indefensible lies are misstatements. The result of honest forgetfulness, wrongly placed phrases, or incorrect wording — all of such explanations are necessary clarifications of what otherwise could be considered by the common and unenlightened as indefensible lies.




It is tolerantly understood by liberal progressives that explanations of policy or detailed terminologies by a cadre of Obama-appointed cabinet officers, agencies, and department chiefs are likely beyond the intellectual grasps of the common recipient. The inner-workings of a highly sophisticated governing methodology (as applied by the Obama government) understandably are difficult for the lay-citizen to comprehend. An Obama presidency is after all unlike any other; therefore, Obama spokespersons though striving to distinguish and disseminate the facts often fail to communicate these truths to a skeptical, mostly wrongheaded-conservative undereducated audience.




The president’s acolytes are concerned that if responses to questions are truthful the public will not fully comprehend the merits of the administration’s insightfulness. Republicans will politicalize the one, two, or possibly three missteps and therefore confusing the real merit of their leader’s meaningfulness. Regardless of these short-term trivial scandals, the value of concern is the faithful adherence to the ultimate goal of “change we can believe in.” A true progressive believer understands that all of Obama’s actions directly or indirectly should be viewed as commensurate with Saint Paul’s definition of faith which in essence is to assume that what was said, written, or viewed by President Obama or his spokespersons is the truth of the matter and consider all contrary evidence as purposeful distortion perpetrated by the president’s enemies.




Admittedly, the preceding was a satirical releasing of bent-up frustrations; withstanding, clearly we citizens understand the recent scandalous exemplification of a government too big to function. Our constitution is only as truthful to its intent as those with the power interpret, apply, and implement. The Obama administration is not the first to lie, cheat, and steal; unless the nonsensical progressive agenda is voted out of power, individual liberty and personal freedom restored, government intrusion eliminated, this scandal, respective of political party, will be repeated.


Is it probable that the concept of a democratic republic as a governing ideology is experiencing its last days? Can congress actually function? Will citizens vote? I have no idea… after all, the people did vote twice to elect Obama.