Authored by William Robert Barber

The recent and current squabbling (i.e. the healthcare chaos) prompts and reveals the unrelenting, often nonsensical, rhetorical battering amongst our wholly disingenuous elected representatives… Possibly, the concept of self-governing is just beyond the reach of consistent probability.

Why would Senator McCain fly to Washington D.C. to vote “NO”? He could have spared the media melodrama and simply stayed home — the result would have been the same and he would not have embarrassed leadership.

Besides the issue of concern, the evident and discernible challenging task resides in those states that allowed the expansion of Medicaid and require federal funding for continued sustenance. Instead of forthrightly defining the actual problem with Medicaid, Republicans, because these politicians are weak of heart as well as a belief in the obvious solution, leadership talks about funding cuts in the ill-defined future; this is not defining the issue of concern nor offering a solution. In fact, such forecasting requires a Harbinger’s license.

No one addresses the looming national deficit, the outrageous cost of governing, the persistent borrowing from those that will lend, the billions paid on interest; the government’s exploitive and persistent promising of “something for nothing” continues to façade reality. How in the empirical and deductive, in hopes of influencing votes, can Senator McConnell offer billions of dollars for any reason when those funds derived from borrowing or printing drives up the deficit?

The citizenry’s addiction to government issued payola as endorsed and protected by the elected proves the corruptive symbiosis between régime, politicians seeking an elective continuance, and the ever-reliant.  The addicts are the newly endowed unregistered lobbyist and the elected striving to retain power are eager to quid-pro-quo their vote in exchange for more payola.

The crux of the “give away” elixir is founded on and paid for under the widely held belief in the magical cure of wealth redistribution. The hypothesis is that progressive taxation will engineer a panacea of social egalitarianism. Lovely words and handsome faces assuage counter views with charming charisma. Artful persuasion creates widespread consensus and the hypothesis of redistribution is law.

Almost immediately, as if out of a heretofore unanticipated void, issues, concerns, and problems emerge. Bureaucracy is dutifully created to dedicate, regulate, and administer. The hypothesis propagates inexplicable authority and expands; the initial budget and cost of implementation exceed legislative expectation, more monies are demanded and fulfilled. Within the span of one administration, bureaucracy overwhelms congressional oversight and the original intent is as if it never was.

The definition of poor and rich redefined. The taxpayer base is expanded to include Americans earning $76,000 and upwards; this is the grouping that pays the vast majority of the taxes. Factually, Americans making less than $40,000 per year, for the most, are overtly omitted from tax paying altogether. These Americans covertly disenfranchised as able citizens; are rendered disabled into disinterest; they degenerate into “useful idiots.” Exclusion from tax-paying obligation abates the republic’s requirement for citizenry participation and enables indifference.

“The fix is apparent:” The Republic is dead. Competence, prudence, and good sense are no longer required. The nation’s citizens have allowed the federal government to grow into an uncontrollable monolithic behemoth.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Besieged by the erratic definition of moral principles, amoral behavior is accepted as a non-confrontational alternative. Statutory impositions purposely coupled with ambiguous language have spawned (within our societal norms) a confusing mixer of hypocrisy and sharp contradiction. Laws legislatively affirmed are subject to the interpretation and discretion of an unelected officialdom of appointed bureaucrats.   

The Republic of 1789 is now a democracy infested with inter-conflicting tribal populism wherein cause matters less than winning. Nonetheless, the greatest threat to this nation’s vitality is its refusal to face and assess the actuals of the world. The standard practice (embraced at the highest level of intelligentsia) of creating a pseudo-reality founded on wanting, wishing, and hoping only services the false perception of righteous denial.

We Americans refuse to accede to the blatant historical manifest of reality: The strong will rule and the weak will submit. America either brazenly enforces its will or concedes. The rational and reasonable acknowledges the preference of persuasion over force; however, when persuasion fails to enable consensus, we (Americans) must realize our determinative obligation as the leader of the “free world” and yes, when required, decisively act to compel said role with military coercion and economic cogency.   

In the ten thousand years of written history peace is the diminutive of experiences and war the overriding contrary. Despite our insistence on relegating a policy of martial resolve and prioritizing peace as the all-important strategy goal, peace resides, in fact only, intermittently between conflicts.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum,” a Latin adage translated, “if you want peace, prepare for war” although the nation recognizes military preparedness, the application of warring tactics, when measured against the benefits since the end of WWII, has been at a horrific cost in blood and treasure. This horrible loss was/is caused by the imprudent deduction of ill-conceived, foolishly contrived underwriting criteria devoid of sagacious sensibilities. Therefore, when a governing contextual is affixed to a legacy of wanting leadership, buttressed, and assisted, by a staff of ineffectual ideologically goaded disciples, fact and truth syntheses into factoids.

Of course, Russia meddled in the electoral process of 2016. Possibly, Putin thought he could sway and discern a beneficial outcome. However, for purposes of their politically motivated design, it is the Democrats that deliberately caused the post-election mayhem of present deflection. The Democrats instead should address the multiplex of everyday citizen concerns and the emerging conflict with North Korea. Putin and his Russians are for the most part a bothersome aside that do not “endanger our Democracy.”

The president’s speech in Poland was a masterful display of exceptional leadership. I am very proud of his definitive interpretation of America’s role in leading the “free world.”

“Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” —  we’ve all heard that adage sometime in our life. Well, President Trump has wisely chosen: “Lead.”


Authored by William Robert Barber

Prophetically, (as if I have prophetic powers) in my last blog I highlighted “Morning Joe,” noting that MSNBC owes theme and subject fees to the president since he is the day-to-day topic. Unknowing to me, the president was also watching Joe and Mica’s unrelenting personal attacks upon his person. Morning Joe’s writers, producers, and the regular cast of the ideologically aligned caught the angst of the president. Sadly, the president’s impulsive tweet did more good for the morning program than millions of dollars worth of advertising — or the guest appearance of Elvis Presley.

These signature Trump tweets are child-like dumb: allowing the “creative” progressives to broadcast that these tweets are symptomatic of a form of psychosomatic incoherence. Question: Why would the president insists on damaging his person and policy agenda to respond to “Morning Joe”? Answer: No one knows.

The status update on the Republican health care legislation is as follows: It’s dead; it’s alive; it’s on resuscitation; it has no chance… but somehow, something good will come out of all the discord and rancor.

These divergent concerns, interests, prerogatives of States are as old as 1789 and form the very basis of the reasoning of federalism. The concept of creating and operating a top-down national health care service that lowers premiums and deductibles while servicing more Americans, is equivalent to a maker of shoes producing one size and one color for all consumers. The national government cannot interrupt the healthcare requirements of States with differing needs. Therefore, the conflict will always deduce down to the States’ governors only pertinent question: How much federal funding is coming my way?

However, what the federal government has done (and continues to do) has far greater ramifications than the inability to satisfy the nation’s health care needs. The federal government is systematically buying off individual liberty with the illusionary currency of security.

Case in point, the last several years of President Obama’s Medicaid expansion is nothing less than the purposeful establishment of a single payer system. Medicaid intended as a healthcare safety net for the poor was ambushed; the Democrats simply changed the definition of poor.

No federal program is fiscally solvent. Our national debt is — when compared to reasonable fiscal prudence — horrendously out of synchronization; nonetheless, for our Congress spending more money is never an issue of and for fiscal anxiety.

Where is the prudent, the rational, and common sensibility of America’s noteworthy deductive reasoning? Oh yes, (for progressives) reasoning is circumvented in favor of “what elitists believe to be the common good.” Deductive reasoning is no longer a tenet of progressive thought. Now, days after losing an election, they comfortably believed they had won these polymaths of progressive thoughts, are busy striving to retain power, demeaning the Trump presidency, and wasting taxpayer monies on investigations, intent on chasing after what does not exist.