Authored by William Robert Barber

I was born a Catholic. As a child, I experienced the “church’s” declared differing between good and the pretext of good. Such differing explained the difference between the Protestants and the Catholics. The Catholics were good. Convincingly, for priest and nun alike the devil’s evil influence was distinctively profound. Characteristically, only the ordained could interpret (for us common) which influence was of the devil and which was of man.

I did learn at a very young age the sanctity of Sister Maria’s word, the sacrosanct of Catholic rituals, and the inviolability of Father O’Neil’s teachings. A Catholic did not trifle, lie, pretend, or contest; a Catholic was a believer. For those of faith that strayed purposefully or by circumstance, guilt was the affliction at least until the next confession.

I also was informed that my divorced mother no longer received the blessings of the church. Telling me this before my first confession and subsequent communion does reek of Schadenfreude. Interestingly, at the time I did not know the meaning of divorce.

And no, the Pope’s visit and subsequent remarks, homilies, God inspired pontificates, and varying opinions do not change my thoughts on the merits of capitalism versus any other economic system or the buffoonery associated with ranking climate change as the premier concern of this nation.

Who could disagree? Yes, peace, justice, and equal access to material resources for all would be lovely, heartfelt, and Utopian. Such would validate kindness as an intrinsic human obligation. One could not argue with the scope of Pope Francis’ message; however, as the Pope would surely concede, the Catholic Church orders confession before communion for a reason: We humans are prodigious sinners and the outright evil 10% will always exist.

In economic terms, the descendant of Peter is an ill-informed observer, who espouses social justice as an obligatory tenet of society when in fact the concept is a marketing ploy of Marxist ideology. The Pope believes that wealth is there for distribution; however, unlike his namesake St. Francis of Assisi, this Pope talks the talk but does not walk the walk.

Imagine if the Pope could fashion the world as he heretofore has voiced. Let us start with the real estate value of the Vatican. Presently, the church pays no taxes. In fact, the taxpayers of Rome supplement its operational costs. The Vatican is primarily a tourist attraction that sponsors hundreds of entrepreneurs and indirectly employs hundreds of people. I assume, respective of the Pope’s insistence on the fair distribution of wealth, the Italian government inherits the real estate and leases it back to the Vatican with all profits along with the personnel wealth of the church divided equally, and distributed to the poor.

Of course the above is nonsense. The Vatican will never give up its riches and the poor, even in as rich a country as America, will always exist. The differing of “the poor” in relationship to the poor of yesteryear is how much stuff the poor of today inventories in relationship to the poor of past times. Within America and the Western World, the poor of today are yesterday’s middle class.

The Pope’s ideals and advice along with his breather of liberal progressive ideologues are unrealistic on the verge of silliness.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Prompted by various ideological determinatives, Lord Acton’s rationalization that “power leads to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” or the degenerative multifarious effects on the viability of a democratic republic because of governmental banality, ineptitude, incompetence, mediocrity, and citizens neglect; whatever the causes, the ideal of initiating and sustaining a constitutionally originated democratic republic has failed. As experienced, the 1789 U.S. Constitution cannot protect the citizenry from the very government the Constitution created.

Possibly, the people’s disinterest in the rudiments of self-governing is fueled by the people’s indifference to the proposition of individual freedom. Possibly, liberty is no longer an American priority. After all, over the last hundred years, Americans have willingly traded freedom and liberty for initially a simple pretense of contrarian misdirection that in time propagates into a supposition of governmental assurance.

For a significant number of citizens and their elected representatives abstention is an accepted apolitical alternative. Abstention is the Nuevo replacement for the traditional sense of one’s civic obligation. This apolitical alternative dooms the mechanical aspects of governing to a processing bureaucracy governed by non-elected regulators.

There is a direct and indirect relationship between this nation’s economic system and individual freedom: When the economics of the nation was agrarian, self-reliance was a virtue. As the economy industrialized, the agrarian economic lifestyle abated; proportionally, self-reliance gave way to government dependence which formalized away from the tradition of family and charity into a federal welfare system, inducing millions upon millions of Americans into a new 20th century lifestyle. The justification for funding and the moral reasoning for individuals acquiring/benefiting from said funds created a robust compendium of blaming and victimization. In fact, a whole class of citizens and non-citizens (illegal immigrants) has formed into a welfare system class subsidized by taxpayers, managed by government employees.

The Supreme Court has effectively settled, not necessarily on the fact, but definitely, on the truth of the matter, the Constitution is a relic. This sacred American document was an ideal of unfulfilled inspiration; a memoriam of what once was valued and treasured.

The Constitution construed, as a democratic republic was doomed from the very beginning because its defect was so overwhelming. The government at first strayed and then abruptly shifted from a nation of laws to a nation prompted by the whims, faults, and misgivings of man. The overwhelming defect was/is that we have a government reliant on the feelings instead of the law of the land. These people of feelings are persons of agenda, interest, and motivations that are intrinsically counter-purposeful to the meaningfulness of a democratic republic. These people decide what laws to enforce and ignore. This ignoring of laws is not simple discretion — it is the wholesale disregard of statutes put in place by the Congress.

Nevertheless, it is we the people that sit down on the wayside of life, gawking as our republic is dismissed, piece by “check and balances” piece; we are stupefied as if a deer caught in the headlights as federalism is abated. We contemplate as a judiciary determined to modify and reinvent the plain and explicit meaningfulness of the Constitution runs amok.

It is not enough for Republicans to rhetorically contest with the Obama administration or their liberal progressive friends and family. The focus must be on the next election. A Republican president is critical, as is a majority in the House; but so is the 60-vote majority in the Senate. Remember: Not all Republicans are conservative enough. An accommodation of tolerance particularly for a Blue State Republican is much better than having a progressive elected. We conservatives cannot allow our focus to wander into a world that does not exist. Step by electoral step is the only path to restoring American values and ethos. Winning elections is our redeeming feature…


Authored by William Robert Barber

There was a time not so very long ago… when the individual in relationship to the king or the state had no rights whatsoever. Resolutely, force of arms and/or the threat thereof dictated the tenuous wherewithal between the governing power and the governed. Louis XIV of France declared “L’etat c’est moi.” King John of England tore up the previously affirmed Magna Carta. However, change was in the air…

Political philosophers such as John Locke and Montesquieu (just to name a couple) submitted that man was born with natural rights. These rights precede the sovereign dictum of king or state. Such thinking influenced the founders of America’s scared documents. Wherein grounded with the caveat that any governmental action must be constitutionally limited, Americans codified the ideal that government derived its political legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Pointedly, the expressed and implied tenet was that sovereignty rests with “we the people.”

Nevertheless, under the ensign of crises or ‘in the public interest’ the ghost of Louis XIV and King John stood in the shadow of ominous probability. This time, the enemies of the republic traded their axe or sword for the deadlier weapons of progressivism, bureaucratic process, and legalese. These warriors, some licensed as officers of the courts, are practitioners of statutorily compliant corruption; they are guns for hire. Sworn to the blessings of billing hours they serve their client, political party, and special interest.

Because the power to tax and to favorably distribute tax revenue is the catalyst of governmental corruption the passing of the 16th amendment sealed the fate of the constitutional concept that we the people empower the government. Aided by sever political divisiveness, the socialist influence of progressivism, and the social ramifications of a populous inclined to accept welfare benefits as a right, Americans are enabling federal government overreach.

Today’s federal government asserts and embeds, at its sole discretion, statutory ambiguities that effectively insure that the process takes precedence over the rational reasoning of the U. S. Constitution.

By means, legislative, regulatory, and magistrate, liberal progressives have rewritten the Constitution from, “all that is not given is reserved” to “all that is not reserved is given.” Our government, as if contorted and misaligned by the nonsensical has belittled the citizenry from a dependence on their own initiatives to a dependence on the inclinations of the elected and appointed elite. As a result, America’s governments are in fact fiefdoms of untethered plenary power.

The executive branch by the sheer uncontested willfulness of its unilateral edicts, mandates, and executive orders has challenged not only the constitutionally protected authority of Congress but has jeopardized the “checks and balances” system of governing.

The Supreme Court not only interprets the laws of the land it actually circumvents Congress and formulates new law.

The present federal government is the arbiter of good and evil, right and wrong; the federal government hand picks one private sector over another; it pits one class of American against another. And now to the detriment of constitutional adherence, as never before, one branch of government is jousting with the other. Madison is crying and Franklin dismayed that his concern was realized. Obama is delighted.


Authored by William Robert Barber

“Just wishin’ and hopin’ and thinkin’ and prayin’,” the lyrics of a Dusty Springfield song are the inductive basis of the Obama-Kerry ‘feelings’ regarding the veracity of the Iran agreement. Moreover, Democrats who have voted with the president, have once again willfully negated and substituted their duty to country in favor of a blinding obedience to political party.

No rational reasoning could deduce that Iran is anything other than an enemy of the United States. There is no doubt in my military mind, that war with Iran is albeit by proxy a present reality. War is the only solution to a nuclear-armed Iran; therefore the sooner the fight begins the less American blood is spent.

The president along with his progressive cohorts has devised and implemented a foreign policy that has cost thousands of innocent non-combat lives and irreparably damaged the well being of thousands more. The only explanation is their world-view: The president must comprehensively believe that American power is the bully in the global playground. That it is American arrogance injecting its rightfulness upon all the other playmates that has caused such worldly disorder. Alternatively, is there some other explanation? Is Obama’s genius for foreign policy so intellectually sublime it is above common comprehension?

It has been suggested by those who know most of all things (a pundit or two) that the president’s grand scheme is to concede that Iran is the dominant nation state in the region. That America has no place in the sector and if Iran was to dominate, peace was feasible. Hmm… why not all they want is Sudetenland.

Now, how about that Hillary girl…