Authored by William Robert Barber

Democracy, a word offhandedly banded about by politician, pundit, and common citizen as the working descriptive of this nation’s egalitarian system of governess, is flat out incorrect. In addition, the citizenry has accepted a natural carry-forward believe that democratic principles apply as the wherewithal of our electoral process. Of course with a bit of scrutiny one would realize that there is no egalitarian system of governess and certainly, political parties have no obligatory nor interest in anything other than selecting the candidate that will win the party an election.

Nonetheless, dull complacency and disinterested ignorance — both detrimental and injurious for a responsive republic — requires, with respect to government and politicians, a constituency with an askant perspective and inclination to be well informed. Obviously, the voters are complacent and ignorant. Swayed by colorful illusions, an agreeable physical presentation, the timely proportion of polemic accusations and placating prose, for the average voter, the candidate’s policies and merits are suddenly inconsequential.  

This nation’s 1789 constitution founded the operational workings of a republic — a representative government,not a democracy. The Electoral College requires 270 votes of the 538 outstanding to win the presidency; the popular vote is irrelevant to election success. The primaries of each of the political parties are subject to the rules enacted by the particular party’s State leaders. It is as simple as that.

If Donald achieves a majority he is the Republican Party’s nominee. If he falls short he may not be.

The founders purposefully designed a constitution wherein a republic was favored over a democracy. I do not know of a government founded on a democracy. The tallies recorded by popular vote is interesting but may not represent the electoral winner.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Politics in general and politicians specifically enunciate the most prolific of shameful offenses: Hypocrisy and contradiction. The script of each offense contains lies, distortions, misdirection, half truths, and — for the purpose of forming a beneficial public persona — willful deception is the headliner of a politician’s propaganda. Simply telling the truth is arcane and politically disabling; besides, truthfulness is not a requirement of political aspiration.

If a citizen is held to statutory recrimination for lying to the FBI should a politician not  be held to the same standard? Newspapers, pundits, and the broadcasting media are not offended when a politician practices hypocrisy or contradiction. In some instances the politician’s actions are dismissed because he or she is a politician. Imagine the reality, we citizens allow our politicians the right to lie to us because they are politicians. Of course it is often not a blatant lie but an exaggeration, an embellishment, a dance around the true meaning of a phrase that propagates a politician’s means to disseminate.

I assume one could respond by noting the citizen has the vote to cancel the hypocrisy and contradiction. Well, yes, if the citizen is informed of the offense. However, in order for such a response, the citizen must be informed.

Our nation’s laws are for the most part created by office holding attorneys and validated by attorneys elected or appointed to the judicial system. Regulators are attorneys that interpret the law to satisfy their particular inclination which is dictated by the political party that dominates the governing administration. All laws and regulations are in definition ambiguous and if ambiguity fails to satisfy a perceived political result, these covenants are subject to the discretion of the enforcer.


The Socialist, A Conniver, A Bully, A One Term Ideologue, and Moderate Governor

A significant and influential number of the powerful sweep away the original interpretation of the 1789 constitution as outdated and therefore not applicable to the realities confronting the present. These interpreters of the constitution is free to enable or disable constitutional tenets at their will.

President Obama has — like presidents before him, starting with President Adams — stretched and violated constitutional limitations to serve his political objective. Withstanding the ruinous effects upon the meaningfulness of the constitution of 1789, for the purpose of aligning their political ideological agenda, the executive branch, the legislative and the judicial have inserted for Machiavellian propose the use of blatant hypocrisy and willful contradiction.

We Americans have a socialist, a conniver, a bully, a one term Senator ideologue, and one super-experienced governor who is purported to be moderate running for the highest office in the land. In this election contrivance and contrariness has subdued the substantive in favor of the nonsensical. Such is the sum of the one-man-one vote when the one-man voter is bedazzled instead of objectively enlightened. The discerning elixir of logical deduction requires more than the fanciful and stylistic. Nonetheless, logic and deduction has little if any influence on the average voter and such is deemed the voice of the people.

Beware of the pretty and soothing, the encouraging void of verifiable essence, and the crafty portrayal of the world as we wish it was… self-governess has never been the American experience. Today we are a wonk-governed, top-down, representative republic — we need to end this governance.

Please, America: COME TO YOUR SENSES!

Authored by William Robert Barber

Donald’s mindset wanders between his hubris predisposition and his indulgent sense of political principles. His demonstrated ignorance of world affairs prompts the beholder to question his solutions which are invariably detail deficient, shatteringly misdirected, and perhaps borderline preposterous. He has no discernable campaign strategy. His tactics remise of schoolyard bullying, name-calling, and deceitful accusations. The “blue collar” billionaire is a braggart, an insidious wheeler-dealer, an ideologically amoral persona, as well as an ambitious purveyor of political influence; nonetheless, since his announcement, the Donald has mercilessly dashed the competitive aspirations of the experienced and the neophyte. Yet, this businessperson-turned-politician is the Republicans’ front-runner.

Possibly, there is a static constituency of collective populous standing at the ready to enjoin in a less than clearly defined cause in pursuit of an imaginative result. Donald’s constituency actually believes (I assume) that building a wall paid for by Mexico is viable. They seem to endorse the concept of keeping (albeit temporarily) all Muslims from entering the USA as doable. Seemingly, while campaigning for the highest office of the land, Donald’s act of raffish disregard and rudeness is not a consideration or concern.

Donald’s silly and wholly ridiculous China bashing is absurd. He negatively grips about the current account deficient wherein the U.S. buys more goods (in the multi-millions) from China than the U.S. sells to China. Apple in China is a Chinese company. The U.S. buys millions and millions of Apple products for millions and millions of dollars. When these products reach the USA, the wholesale and retail aspects of these products benefit American consumers. The wholesalers and retailers employ thousands of Americans; pay taxes, invest in infrastructure, and invest in a divergent array of differing resources. Apple’s stock is a mainstay in millions of Americans’ retirement portfolios. China is the manufacturing suburb of Los Angeles. China has contributed greatly to this nation’s GNP and tax base.

According to Donald, America should renegotiate trade agreements to benefit America… hmm… withstanding America’s dominance as the largest consumer nation in the world, trade — though never static in scope and principle — requires a mutually beneficial arrangement. But then of course Donald’s gong to “make America great again,” I assume cajoling, bullying, name calling, and the uses of atavistic pejoratives while designating world leaders as incompetents, is the New Yorker’s sense of diplomacy.

The cause and effect of Donald’s 35% of voters has overwhelmed the crowded field of presidential aspires; nonetheless, a consistent and persistent 65% have resisted Donald’s call to vote. Divided amongst the remaining two candidates and delegates from former candidates, the anti-Donald 65% are fighting hard to deny Donald the required 1237 delegates.

Cruz is the beneficiary of the “anybody but Trump” movement. However, his present placement as with Donald is temporary if they do not win on the first ballot. Presently, Mr. Cruz is the “establishment’s” rallying point. Alternatively, the Texas Senator is a sacrificial pawn in a transparent effort to deny Donald the majority.

I rarely use the word hope. Nonetheless, I hope that Cleveland will mangle Donald’s efforts. I fantasize that Cruz and the Ohio governor enjoin and that Cruz accepts the Vice Presidency.