Authored by William Robert Barber

We Americans consider representative government preferable to the antithesis; in fact, (smugly) we think of our constitutionally derived government as a desirable exception. We tout and exemplify, in a definitive sense of righteousness, our “Bill of Rights,” our system of check and balance, the meaningfulness of constitutional federalism,  and the phrase from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, “of the people, by the people, and for the people” as the essence of America’s government. Often we contrast and distinguish our government comparing ours with a government of contrary intent and totalitarian countenance. The result bellows our lungs; we are proud.

And then… once into the weeds of actuality we find that irrespective of statutory definitive(s) the applications of constitutional ideals butt head-first upon the reality of political governing. Rhetorically enriched ringmasters with political ambitions pose as statesmen, the presumptive providence of judicial wherewithal re-defines original intent and the people, unconcerned with the consequence, value “what’s in it for me” as the prerequisite to earning their vote. Almost from the very beginning of the republic distortions were formed, ideals altered, and original intent interwoven into the lattice of legalese ambiguity-the republic started to wander away from the adherents of constitutional merits in proportion to the implementation of ideals.

What eventually took the place of the republic as designed in 1789 was a superfluity of government agencies, departments; associations, committees, and tax supported non governmental entities co-mingled with and into codes, rules, obligatory guidance, and statutory laws. In the interest of sustaining the viability of growth (a paramount concern of this type of government) this tonnage of bureaucratic infrastructure created a governing system that required evermore legislation, which initiates even more government.  Along the way, a process was defined; this process (known explicitly by the governing few) of moving the Alfa subject through to the Zulu concluding was purposely designed to be a muddling bewilderment.

We Americans now have a tax-sustaining government propelled by a bureaucratic inertia; a government that no one, from an operational perspective, truly understands; we Americans have created a governing process that drives its will through a bureaucratic morass void of original premise or present viability. Individual liberty and freedom are now subordinate to the will of federal judges and governments, all governments, city, county, or State inclusive with the federal are behemoth with power. The republic has been lost to a relatively new theoretical endeavor; one flush with promises of surety for peace of mind, body, and spirit.

Similar to evangelist proselytizing to the populous they demand concurrence to a doctrine of faith. One must have the faith that the proselytizer knows best and that, in the case of evangelistic progressivism, the elitist who have graduated with an Ivy League education will lead those who know less to the promised land of milk and honey or was that bread, beer, and games.

Naturally,  individual liberty, and freedom is the fare of exchange…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The principle policy of diversity as practiced throughout the institutions of our nation is harmonious with today’s mores of political correctness. Diversity as defined in factual implementation is (solely speaking for myself) the new virtue; its actions parallel the ideals of collectivism — Lenin would surely approve and socialists rejoice. Its meaningfulness in utilitarian terms has had a profound effect upon every aspect of American society. Its legislative or judicial enactment conjures and evokes socio-political concepts and theories such as social justice, societal inequality, equalitarianism, and scientism; these premises are considered (by diversities advocates) synonymous to progressive governance.

The elected leader of diversity is President Obama. The guiding philosophy is progressivism. The means to achieve diversity as instigated by the president (and progressives’ tagalong socio-economic-political connotations) is boundless in temerity. The president considers Machiavellian extralegal tactics as actionable both in scope and methods. For the common and ordinary (person) the president consistently promises more than he can deliver. He creates a non-existent problem so to publicly boast his profound solution; one such problem was “the war on women”… his solution: Vote Democrat. He rhetorically theorizes his willingness to either incur more debt or extort cash from those that have so to (supposedly) give to those that have less. He repeatedly declares, “I have a pen and a phone”, effectually dictating that by executive order he can and will circumvent congress.

The progressives believe that as with Hammurabi’s Code the U.S. Constitution is an antiquated non-applicable document requiring an extensive rewrite. Additionally, a highly thought-of progressives’ ideal is that the legacy of individual freedom and liberty, the principles, spirit, and definition of traditional American values are, as with the philosophy of individualism and existentialism, a menace to their concept of a sophisticated equalitarian society.

The ideological divide between a conservative and a progressive is so divergent, compromise is impossible. This chocolate will NEVER mix with the vanilla; conciliation requires concessions and there will be no substantive give and take. There will only be confrontation, conflict, and frustrated bitterness… until one political philosophy wins dominance.

Interestingly, I believe that even if the progressives should win they will lose: Their ideas just don’t function fluidly in a free society.