Authored by William Robert Barber

The critical presumptive of the Constitutional Convention was the premise that a self-governing republic was a viable alternative to the king’s governess. However, for reasons known, unknown, and speculative almost from the beginning, irrespective of a written constitution, those in power, the very founders, sought to undermine and circumvent the meaningfulness of a democratic republic. The fundamental principles of a constitutionally guaranteed government was effectively challenging the very wherewithal of self-governess. Over time, prompted by fears real and imagined, the temporal subdued the ideal, amoral mores besieged the moral, statutorily compliant corruption eroded the righteous of civil values. The distinctively self-reliant, the doer, the “make it happen” enterprising American starts its topple into extinction.

A thought here, another there, thesis argues with antithesis…the result is the birthing of multiple counter opinions, each armed with varying degrees of panache. Inevitably, contentedness rivals disgruntlement and factions disagree with the initial premise while other factions are willfully contemptuous. Contrariness and contrivance are pronounced tactics that are antithetical to the usefulness of reason and rational. With sensibility on hiatus the politically inclined acquiesce in favor of their particular ideological schism. Seemingly, the effects of such unreasonable and irrational behavior is acceptable precepts to the doctrines of today’s sense of self-governing.

Premise: The premeditated intent of the U.S. Constitution was to establish a government of limited scope and power. America was to initiate a land of the free. Thomas Jefferson in 1800 defined the “sum of good government” as one “which shall restrain men from injuring on another” and “shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.”

Counter: Maybe, however technological enhancements, demographic upheavals, and the pragmatic obligations of differing circumstance have dulled the sharpness of that original intent beyond recognition. Factually, the limits of the Federal government are boundless.

Premise: Liberty and individual freedom are the preemptive expressed value of the greater majority of historical to present day Americans.

Counter: Governmental surety in all its manifestation has superseded the average American’s belief in the preeminent value of liberty and individual freedom. Further, the rewording of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 inaugural is now demand that your country does for you.

Premise: Federalism is a bedrock constitutional principle that tempers and mitigates central government dominance, thereby assuring States their sovereignty.

Counter: Respective of the expressed covenants within the U. S. Constitution, legal precedence, and writs of judicial review has explicitly defined that States’ rights when in conflict are subservient to Federal jurisdiction. The concept of precedence, legislative process, and executive order has abated the need for strict adherence to the constitution’s implied and explicit tenets.

Premise: There are three co-equal branches of government. One branch does not have the constitutional authority to diminish or abate the dominion of the other.

Counter: As emphatically determined by the executive office, States often blatantly disregard the common interest of the nation’s people; therefore, so to enforce Federal preference, the executive branch utilizing inherent and implied powers has the right to circumvent any co-equal disputes.

Of course, none of the preceding matters since our republic was lost with passage of the 16th amendment in 1913; our present government is now formed by two operating systems. One is something called “legislative process” the second is the domineering fourth branch called “the regulators.”


Authored by William Robert Barber

The synthesized former politician of old is now a “champion.” However, the “champion” – contrary to Washingtonian precedence — proposes and offers propositions void of binding veracity. Hilary the “champion” is a duplicitous antihero; a portentous player in a political drama of Shakespearean design. Amazingly, there are millions of Americans forth-rightfully willing to vote her into the presidency.

From my perspective the Hilary story goes like this: A piper appears. Gender irrelevant the piper’s flute emits a melodious tune. The piper’s style and rhetoric mingle to create the appearance of “other than the usual,” a sense of hopefulness gleams. Prudent scrutiny is set aside; substantive objectivity deemed passive and unnecessary. An irrational regard for popular concurrence overwhelms reasonable caution. The power of “the process” positions the unworthy to advantage “the ideal and conceptual” in favor of Realpolitik; cash buys the influence and quid pro quo favors the politically malleable and — voilà, Hilary is the “champion.”

For the most part, history is a compendium of selected characters and events. A discombobulated commingling of facts, myths, factoids, and embellishments all encased within a narrative tainted by novelistic inclinations. We descendants of past performance will never know the “truth;” instead, we reconcile to varied submissions of “the truth.” Even today’s viewers and partakers of current events though sharing the same informational advantage, nonetheless, substantively differ in the endorsement of policy, approach, and prediction of outcome. When however, the former Secretary of State arbitrarily deletes emails, when a government employee blatantly violates statutory laws, ignores the rules and regulations of precedence, and plainly constructs lies to fit a particular situation that person is unfit for elective office.

Intrinsically, “the truth” is a variegated phenomenon; the truth of the matter is factual only in arrears. Often the truth is a non-rated concern because the effectual result is in fact the truth by means remonstrative or coercive.

Mrs. Clinton is an unmanageable princeling. A “champion” of effectual result, she will say and do whatever. She is an amoral secularist motivated by the attainment of political power. The country owes her the presidency and she damn well needs everyone to not only submit to that debt but also do so cheerfully.