Authored by William Robert Barber

Liberal progressives do heartedly believe that the ideals of progressivism can render solutions for real world quandaries. However, real-live experience evidences otherwise: Cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, New York, and Harrisburg exemplify progressive ideals applied. In addition, there is ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank legislation, and the governing incompetence coupled with the politicalize IRS, ICE, and the DOJ. The results of liberal progressive theorems employed as a solution to a real world quandaries are in the least problematical to measure — and at the most an utter failure.

Progressivism originated (in part) on a Marxian principle of equalitarianism, the presumptive thought being that the upper class of society in collusion with “the powerful,” (as a natural consequence of being “the powerful”) will protect their economic viability. Therefore, to counterpoise “the powerful”, the common, disenfranchised, and poor have politically confederated. The Democrat Party is and has been the recipient of such a confederation of interest.

Certainly, over the last six years of President Obama’s governess the Democrats have deeply invested in progressive ideology; such governess is exampled by their demonstrable actions. The pertinent question is: aside from beautiful words construed into promises of bountiful economic appreciation, have those within the confederation of interest realized any measurable gain?

Progressives may define an issue of concern, but defining is not confronting. Inclusively, observing, perceiving, remarking, and specifically discussing the rudiment of the issue is not a solution. Artfully orchestrated words do not translate into a prosaic descriptive nor aggregate into a resultant resolution.

The challenge for liberal progressives is to deductively overcome their beholden to the irrational presumptive of their ideological principals and the fanciful assumptions of human nature. They are intellectually inclined to favor a contrariwise response to any conservative interpretive. Progressives are practitioners of contrarianism. They have a singular methodology of and to problem solving: Form a committee, hire attorneys, and spend more of the taxpayers’ money.

As an example, Hillary most recently, as part of her economic agenda, gave a speech in New York City. The all but in fact Democratic nominee for president (Mrs. Clinton) noted that within the world of moneymaking but more specifically, “big business.” There is an intrinsic scheme of unfairness. And because of such corporate DNA of unfairness the hard working middle class is not receiving their fair share of wage benefit. Deducing that such unfairness is the result of corporations not sharing more of their enormous profits, she offered the remedy of “internal redistribution” of corporate profits.

Interestingly, Hillary did not discuss the ‘how’ part of the “internal redistribution” of corporate profits nor did she address the reality that a deduction of corporate profits by the corporation issuing more cash from its profits would obviously mean less tax revenue to the federal government. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton’s “Fairness Crusade” speech was nothing less than a purposeful contrarian response. The fact that a progressive (in place for 6 years) government has not appreciated middle class wages is not addressed. Instead of facts aggregating, evolving, and settling into a solution, Mrs. Clinton offers misdirection and misstatements.

As evidenced by the workings of President Obama and Secretary Kerry, progressives because of their philosophical ethos and surreal interpretation of international cause and effect cannot competently negotiate. The perfect illustrations are the Obama/Kerry dealings with Iran and Russia. Progressive ideology infected with politics prohibits the entrance of empirical evidence if such evidence is counter to establish doctrine.

The idea, the concept of creating a moral and economic liberal progressive utopia, governed by a “standard of equalitarian principles,” is the first academic step into a governess wherein individual freedom and liberty are forsaken and replaced by a brand of socio-economic collectivism managed by elites armed with the corporeal power of government.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Because truth telling has uncontrollable consequences and overt lying has prosecutorial implications, Obscurantism is the day-to-night practice of political and bureaucratic leadership. Legal advice has not only subverted the mandate of truth telling; these advisors have diminished congressional oversight into a partisan inspired game show. Imagine what the average “Joe and Josephine” must be thinking when IRS Commissioner Koskinen overtly lies to Congress, Lois Lerner refuses to testify, and both walk away free and clear of prosecution! Yet, if a citizen responded to an IRS inquiry in the same manner, severe reprimand would be sure to follow.

A politician lies to the electorate. Distinguished pundits and mainstream media all sit around agreeing that the politician lied. Interestingly, the pundits go on, agreeing that from the highest in recognition to the anonymous lie. However, the pundits reason because the common denominative amongst the political class is duplicity and since the practice is common, the lying from a politician is not considered lying but benign embellishment.

Television media in particular (but all media, really) when interviewing a guest no matter if the guest is a wonk, a celebrity, or an elected official. The host seeks controversy… any kind of controversy will do. No matter the particular: the questions are more bait than a substantive inquiry. This approach by media feeds into the reasoning of the guest not answering the question. Interviews are a jousting event wherein, like President Obama, the tactic is to elongate the answer, which in its finality is not an answer at all.

The founding premise of a democratic republic is an informed constituency that populates a land where the law is superior to the person. However, in America discretion has superseded lawfulness. In America an entire city ignores even subvert federal law because city leadership has decided to do so. The Justice Department willfully intercedes into the policing duties of a city; it can, as if issuing a criminal RICO indictment, subject any person, business, or municipality to their scrutiny.

We have allowed the country to sleepwalk to the edge of the abyss because truth telling has uncontrollable consequences and overt lying (unless one is a politician or a federal) has prosecutorial implications. Wake up America, wake up…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The following are disconcerting: Seemingly (since we the people only know what the government decides to tell us) China breached our government’s digital storage and our CIA chief congratulates their boldness. Unconstrained ISIS traverses through Syria and Iraqi inspiring recruitment at the same time terrorists initiate worldwide attacks on soft targets. The IRS snubbed a congressional order to preserve (emails) instead, the federal agency blatantly destroyed thousands. Effectually rewriting the law of the land, Chief Justice of Supremes saves ObamaCare for the second time. A racist idiot wantonly kills nine innocent human beings; responding, the president blames the incident on ineffectual gun laws. Greece is imploding. Notable civilians in unison with high-ranking military officers affirm a letter to the White House expressing deep ceded concern over the management of the Iran nuclear negotiations. Responding, White House spokesperson curtly assures listeners that all is in harmony and according to plan.

The Obama administration is faithfully marching in cadence to the liberal progressive drumbeat, emphasizing priority issues of climate change and social justice, while avoiding answers to the multiple questions regarding Hillary Clinton’s undisclosed emails. For President Obama it is always about the next election, the next political row, or delving into his pledge of transforming America. This is the state of political affairs rousing about the White House and Hillary’s electoral ambition.

Freedom and individual liberty are inconsistent and contrary to a liberal progressive’s ideals of fairness and justice. Nevertheless, the persistence of progressive aspirational factoids coupled with the deceptive notion that one can receive something of value for nothing remains. America has evolved into an autocratic governing entity managed by bureaucrats and financed by the indemnity of “big government’s” insistence on the noble purpose of egregious taxation and regulation.

“Liberty has to die so that equality might live” is a truism. Equalitarianism is a Marxist theoretical, a populist ruse whose time will never manifest beyond the academic. Nonetheless, with only subtle resistance the idea that wealth redistribution is a government’s moral imperative spurs the legislature to configure proclivities into lawful mandates. Proportionate to our nation’s inclination to wantonly stray from the literal meaningfulness of the Constitution (usually to address a particular social or political whim) the utility and facility of self-governing is first corroded, then exploited, and finally traded for the surety of an elitist managed brand of socialism.

The founders of 1789 were rightfully skeptical of the people’s ability much less inclination to and for self-governing. The founders were not harbingers or clairvoyants but were able to forecast the probability of human failings and therefore artfully created a constitution of built-in safeguards, such as the Check and Balance between the three separate but equal branches of government. Federalism insured State sovereignty and with elections mandated every two and six years, voters righteously expressed their determinations. However, when a significant percentage of citizens simply does not vote, the veracity of democracy lessens. Statutorily encoded ambiguity is so prevalent that the law of the land requires a court or several courts to declare lawfulness, the IRS is a deceiver, and the Department of Justice is a politicized fief of the president and his party. The legal process is a Byzantine mix of organized contrarianism administered by indemnified bureaucrats, wholly managed by attorneys. Congress passes laws they have not read and certainly — with few exceptions — do not understand. The elected pass on the interpretation of legislation to regulatory wonks and the courts; surely, this is a reflection on poor electoral turnout.

Ben Franklin had his doubts as to whether a republic was sustainable… and now we know it was not.