Authored by William Robert Barber

Since the founding of the republic ideological differences related and relevant to governing expectations, application, and process have developed into harshly conflicting perspectives.  Since the times of Hamilton and Jefferson, although argued with vitriolic tenacity, these ideological differences are never resolved.  The arguments and issues are the same; the only change is the venue, means, technical techniques, and protagonists.

The genesis of the disagreements though multifold could generally be defined in two central causes for dispute: What role does government assume, and is it limited or unlimited as to its power and authority? Are individual liberty and personal freedom prioritized as unassailable or is the citizen required to subordinate upon demand to the marshal authority of government?

The United States have a founding document that establishes the role of government as limited while definitively and explicitly guarantees within the Bill of Rights assures a citizen’s individual liberties and freedoms. Nonetheless, withstanding the written word, constitutional literates that include erudite judges, politicians, attorneys, legal scholars, and the specifically interested are implacably divisible as to the general as well as specific meaningfulness of the constitution. These constitutional literates hold wholly contrarian perspectives and for these literates the differences are immutable. The argumentative divide is an intellectual chasm that will not compromise nor synthesizes into acceptance.  One side believes in the literal application of the constitution therefore blessing the founding document of 1789 as (less the constitutional use of amendments) interpretively inalterable. The others believe the constitution is a living breathing document that is alterable; they believe that progressive-biased reinterpretation or present values construe is a rational, sensible, possibly even sagacious reading of the founders’ actual intent.

The point being, these ideological perspectives are here to stay; one will not convert the other. Diametric and substantively congress will always be irreconcilably divided. As a consequence both sides work to persuade the unaligned to gain their vote. This practice of “vote getting” is the nitty-gritty of attaining political power. As a consequence, because the prevailing attitude of political operatives are to win the election at all cost. For the cohorts of vote-getters, unless and until overtly exposed, action deemed reprehensible or illegal is acceptable practice. The unaligned voter is bombarded with embellishments, lies, distortions, the truth, and the somewhat untruthful… for the voter discernment is positioned between difficult to impossible.  

Soon, because of the national debt, an interest rate increase, cost of social service entitlements, an aging population, the excessively-outrageous cost of governing, egregious taxation policies, and the absolute need to maintain the most powerful military on earth, a series of definitive decisions will inevitably be forced upon the nation’s people. Those that advocate nanny-state socialism in the interest of survival will succumb to the reality of existential values coupled with a free and open market not just of goods but of ideas and innovational possibilities. But of course I could be wrong…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Regardless of motivation (there are many), this nation has moved decisively and definitively away from the idea of a limited government to a government of unlimited dimension, authority, and command. This development is permanent; respective any conservative ideals to the contrary the federal government will never diminish in size, statutory authority, or power. Along with this government of obese dimension comes politically-enthused leadership dosed with a heavy reliance on public relations. Today, the nation has presidential leadership that looks and feels more like a calculator of political events. An orator that irrespective of diplomatic or policy debacles is wholly satisfied by his own hubris. The calculator Obama, instead of incurring the possible political risks of assuming command, delegates the indistinguishable bureaucracy to the front. The president is most comfortable voting present.

Despite threats to the contrary, Mr. “Red Line” President lacks the will to impose American power on evil doers. Consequently, enemies sense a mortally wounded America. Because the indistinguishable bureaucracy is not a persuasive forum, the American people perceive no value in expending blood and treasure in ill-defined political objectives that require military inducement for a chance at success. Although this reluctance to continue the expenditure of blood and treasure has happened many times since WWII: Eastern-Europe, China, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, soon to be Afghanistan, and most recently Syria — never before has the dominance of America’s global power been in question. The reality is that before this president’s term ends, Iran will be an armed nuclear power.

Respective of the ultra-circumspective to point of stupefying quality of leaderless-Obama-leadership, America’s prevailingly latent issue is its refusal to accept its singular obligation: to insure global order. It is only American might that can right the wrongs of those that would perpetrate such wrongs; but we prefer to stick our head in the sand by delegating to the United Nations or simply ignoring the world’s truisms and its reality. Whether we like it or not, the moral authority to act falls upon America; we are the “world’s policemen.”  

Admittedly, power is coercion, a form of intimidating persuasion. All force once implemented must be overwhelming in martial properties and decisive in result. However, power and the authority to exercise coercive-persuasion require the moral sanction to act. That authority to act exists within the distinction of good and bad, right from wrong, moral, and immoral, and importantly, by quantifying what is just and noble.

Because President Obama is not a leader and because he thinks political implications before acting, he hesitates even to delegate his authority to the bureaucratic enigma of a discombobulating congress. The longitude and latitude of authority is dependent and will always require the virtues of just and noble. President Obama is a politician and politicians value political success over the virtues of just and noble. Therefore, our allies (less the French as I understand it) will not follow. His congressional democratic brethren would have voted No. Interestingly, a few Republicans voted their principles and ideals and noted a Yes vote.

Surely, few of you readers will think that America must assume the role of the world’s policemen and many think me narrowly fanatical in the inherent pessimism of my world view… but then, differings are critical to dialogue and such does enhance one’s intellectual stimuli.  


Authored by William Robert Barber

If my recollection is correct the battle of Iwo Jima cost our nation 25,000 dead and wounded. We could have gassed the island for weeks before sending in our marines and saved thousands of lives; but that would have been a violation of the Geneva Accords. So instead of gassing the enemy we burned, shot, bombed, and suffocated them to death. A few months later we dropped nuclear bombs on their cities and purposefully killed women, children, and every living thing in between. We did all those horrific things (in accordance to the Geneva Convention) to win the war; politicians call it “winning the peace”.

Change the weaponry, the geography, the culture, and the language one deduces that this sort of tactical-killing has been going on and on for thousands of years. It is reasonable to ascertain that there are scores of tyrannical despots waiting to be born; and hundreds of thousands of unborn victims awaiting persecution. Although not claiming to be a harbinger with a 100% surety I can confidently forecast that more horrific incidences are inevitable.  The affable peddlers of “what one wants to hear” will reinsert the horrific as striving to win the peace.

I have little doubt that Assad, with the aid and assist of his lieutenants, gassed his enemies. Without a doubt, the Russians would have rather had these very same people killed by other less objectionable means. Withstanding, Assad is their man; he services a Russian-Iranian geopolitical objective — so without giving it too much concern (for those gassed), they simply blame the gassing onto to the rebels.

But this time the Russians, having studied the timely wants and needs of President Obama, played a different gambit: this time they saved Obama from himself by inferring the role of peacemaker.  Interestingly, everyone knows, even the president thoroughly understands that he is being played by the Russians. But because the president is unwilling to act as originally declared, he obligingly submits. What a coup for Vladimir. How desperately silly the president is perceived by ally and foe. The president on the other hand seems satisfied by the buoy afforded by his tragically misplaced hubris.

Truisms: There will never be a world without enemies or one without martial confrontation. There are periods of less war but there will never be a world at peace. The preceding truisms are a reality that must preempt all actionable policies. Despots are a constant within human society. They cannot be reasoned… they can only be forcefully deposed.

But of course there is resistance to the use of force and many examples of the imprudent use of military interdiction. Nevertheless no sane person would suggest the elimination of the military nor would such sanity want to trade the most powerful nation on earth for somewhat less than the most powerful.

The resistance to the use of force is usually founded on the concept of proportionate response. Limiting aggressiveness within the confines of proportionate response seems reasonable to those in policymaking roles; withstanding they do delve, engage, and insert blood and treasure in support of a strategic particular. The conceptual of the engagement is buttressed as prudent by political acolytes who fundamentally rely on the assurance generated by the consonance of mutual acceptance. However as with all endeavors terrain and situation change and require revision of plans both variables and alternative. It is at this point that the imposed limitation of proportionate response, challenges leadership to adapt and reemploy. President Obama’s style of leading from way-the-hell behind stymies and disables the required adaptation. Soon the strategy no longer applies, leadership wanes, political acolytes seek a haven, frustration generates denunciation prompting leadership to retrograde from engagement.

From 1918 to 2013 this has been the foreign policy pattern of America. We engage. We disengage and then engage. American leadership refuses to accept the world’s reality as factual; so they conceive a world that does not exist; they contemplate and contrive; they act then regress; reality is just too confounding for our leaders so they become novelist and delve in fiction.

And then we are surprised by the attack at Pearl Harbor and two attacks at the World Trade Center. Before Russia was our ally in WWII they were allied with Hitler’s Germany and we still, at the Potsdam Conference, trusted Stalin as the allies divided a post-war Europe.  Now President Obama trusts the Russians to reign-in Syria’s chemical weaponry? The president’s Syrian policy has taken on a fraudulence of biopic carnivalesque produced, written, and directed by Vladimir Putin — at the expense of American creditability.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Be it foreign or domestic, President Obama’s concept of implementing progressive ideals and doctrine has utterly failed. This president’s administration has not enhanced America’s security but endangered it. The measure of his domestic economy sums as generally anemic with smatterings of counter-productive regulatory obsessiveness; the president is an answer looking for the right question.

This debacle in Syria is just one explicit example of the president’s coupling of ineptitude buoyed upon a substratum of ingenuous naiveté.  ObamaCare is, as with his foreign policies, loaded with dubious factoids. Is it not reasonable to question and doubt this man’s ability to lead? Soon this “leader of the free world” will implicitly oblige, convey, and subordinate American leadership to the whim of the United Nations, which effectually means to the influences of China and Russia.

His policy findings are founded on a souk of chimerical make-beliefs; his hortatory is addled and hesitant; he speaks of the Syrian threat to moral-compliance as if the subject was measured in a theorem but subject to some ill-defined relative comparative. He does not act as the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military power on earth; he does not reflect the cognitive competency needed to risk (in Syria) American blood or treasure.

President Obama is a parody of the Wizard of Oz: All is well and swell. As long as the president’s task is to deliver pretty words of meaningless meaningfulness, smile, look presidential, and pretend. But once that surface is scratched and the underlying exposed, one finds scandals, promises broken or denied, topped with political shenanigans galore.

Of course the president is a lame exemplar of an American commander-in-chief and yes, his administration is weak in all the sectors that require strength; but it’s not just the president and his administration; it is the entire Democratic Party and the progressive leadership that admonishes the truth of the matter for the sake of positive political spin.

When Vladimir is the president’s saving grace, we should all acknowledge that America has been debased, abused, and denigrated.