Authored by William Robert Barber

Winston Churchill wrote that “Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.”

Adam Smith is considered the father of modern economics; he wrote about the “invisible hand” of free enterprise. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are credited with creating an economic, political, and philosophical basis for state control or ownership of all material resources and assets. In the present, the liberal progressives of the Obama brand have chosen a synthesis between Smith and Marx. Their Obama brand is heavy on state control and light on free enterprise.

Obama is a socialist. But most of all, he is a politically inspired leftist zealot; he will do or say whatever is necessary to attain or retain his power. Over the last hundred years, this nation has leaned far to the political and economic left; plus, if one considers the validation of the last presidential election, one could reckon conservative principles mortally wounded. As a consequence, Obama and his acolytes accepted the last two presumptions as truthful, so plotted and planned the coup de grace to American capitalism. Of course the progressives along with impairing capitalism also wanted to rid America of its sense of exceptionalism. So not to offend its brother and sister nations, it also wanted America to cede its pride and unilaterally denominate its power and prestige.

I do think there is a common thread, distinction, or predominate hue amongst socialist, dictatorships, and Obama’s liberal progressives. As a matter of procedure and process, all capital mandated by legislation or edict in the form of tax, license, or fee must first funnel thru the federal treasury before distribution to dedicated entities or concerns.

Obviously, this transactional funneling of cash aside from promoting begging and corruption is the central government’s means of exacting retribution, rewards, and absolute control over the states, counties, cities, and therefore the people.

For those of us who believe that society exists for the benefit of individual people, that government intervention in the interest of the collective is unwarranted coerciveness, and that there should be no constraints by the government as to individual achievement…beware!

If free enterprise is the exceptional basis of Americanism then there is a resurgent’s of a heresy. This heresy, for a substantial portion of the populous, has an instant emotional appeal. The thesis of this heresy is fraught with stimulating calls to and for societal reformation. The context of this heresy required Wilson, Roosevelt, FDR, and the Obama government to use heretofore extraordinary methods and means to exact its ideological agenda. The empathy for this heresy is global in scope. It is well regarded in all political environments. The Europeans love it. The heresy is embedded in universal theology and particularly popular amongst the academic intelligentsia.

The heresy is founded on the premise that the lack of equal status be it social, material, or political is the root of all human negatives. Hence egalitarianism (the heresy in subject) is the universal answer. And most importantly, the political exactness of this egalitarian belief is that the state is the best and final arbiter of any and all nuances, definitions, or particulars of and for policy implementation. Although feigning concerns of social and economic injustice the expediters of this heresy are focused on politics and hell-bent to attain power.

The heresy has and does have many differing names: socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and within the last 150 years or so, progressivism. All of these “isms” profess economic, political, and legal egalitarian virtues. The ethos of this heresy is premised on an oligarchic elitism. Whereby; ostensibly, in the interest of the collective community, those few who ‘knowingly understand the meaningfulness of material issues and values” will lead the many who know far less.

The newest version of this heresy is Obama-ism. The president and his confederates of political progressive persuasion have cleverly traversed their way into power. They managed their entrée the ole fashion way…they got themselves elected. Now their heretofore campaign rhetoric has run into the real world; wherein, smartly expressed and cleverly designed falls anemically short of required. Within the Obama economic team, academic theory has run its course, predictions failed there delivered with zest benchmarks, billions of dollars have been spent with very little to no results. The cry for the empirically measured is pushing and pulling it way onto the center front of the economic-political mainstay. The Obama economic policy is being dissected, deciphered, and dismissed as counter-productive, wasteful, costly, misdirected, and possibly even counter-intuitive.

Withstanding the measure and failing grade Obama persists…well, November is just around the corner.



Authored by William Robert Barber

Certainly I cannot confirm, nevertheless, my assumption is that within the mindset of a liberal progressive there is a compelling sense for moral righteousness; this self-determined moral sense of doing what is righteous forms the basis of a liberal progressive’s obligor of service. It is this moral determinative of righteousness that kindles the ideal, the exceptional, the reasoning to their often indiscernible, too wit.

Liberal progressives envision themselves as the modern paladin; a champion of fairness, social justice, enablers of “a level playing field;” they are the separator, the benchmark, the contrast from the normative base and common. They are the intelligentsia of cognitive all-knowing. Wonks who possess the utility of sublime meaningfulness, these liberal progressives, out of their sheer sense of moral righteousness, know, it is best and in the interest of the common good that they govern those that know less.

For the liberal progressive, the presumption of cognitive all-knowing is the intrinsic precursor, an intellectual predeterminative that applies to all political and socio-economic problem-solving. It is this ideal of moral fidelity to righteousness that intrinsically fuels a progressive’s contemplation, analysis, and conclusiveness.

By means of gradual intellectual stimuli layered by years of scholarly affect or the natural evolving of a parent’s initial prospective, and possibly the sublet persuasion of a teacher or mender; regardless, the parts and pieces aggregate into the result and a liberal progressive mind-set is created.

Somewhere along this line of aggregating parts and pieces, the methodology of logical deduction is overwhelmed by the comforting assurance of predeterminative beliefs. Let’s utilize the Obama administration’s approach to solving the challenges brought about by the present economic turndown:

The recession preceded Obama’s oath of office by about a year; in February 2008, G. W. Bush, with the support of a Democratic Congress, established a $168 billion stimulus. Larry Summers and Peter Orszag endorsed the policy, noting that this and any stimulus should be “timely, targeted and temporary.”

By the third quarter of 2008, the GDP fell by 4% and the financial meltdown finalized any hope of economic recovery. Stimulus I failed. Not deterred, Stimulus II moved into execution, this time the amount was $814 billion. Summers now promised that this cash-influx would have a 1.5 “multiplier” effect on GNP growth, not to be outdone; Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein infamously predicted that this stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%.

The Federal Reserve had its own unprecedented monetary stimulus with cutting interest rates near zero and purchasing 2 trillion dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities as well as other assets of unknown market value.

Congress, not wanting to seem disengaged from the crisis of the moment, created other cash giveaways of its own design: The $8,000 home-buyer’s tax credit, mortgage payment relief, and unemployment pay extended to 99 weeks, and cash-for-clunkers.

In the end of the end, the government has never before spent so much and intervened so directly in credit allocation and received in turn so very little. After nearly 3 trillion in federal debt, we still have over 15 million unemployed.

Now, after all of this evidence and fiscal testimony, what does the Obama administration and the liberal progressive majority in congress want for this nation? Well, more stimulus! Their reasoning is that the stimulus was too small. The “because” part of their failure to address the economic turndown is particularly insightful; they say that the Republicans just respond with “no” and do everything in their power to block their efforts. Imagine, the Democrats control the entire government and it is the Republicans who blocked their problem solving agenda!

I wonder, considering his government’s failure to stimulate the economy by the means employed before and after his inauguration, will its economic team push on with more of the same? Will there be a continuum? Will the basis of Obama’s progressive ideological inclination overwhelm the empirical evidence that indicates a contrarian initiative to spend and tax as a solution?

I think that if one looks to his constancy of trashing business and bankers as greedy SOBs, calling out entrepreneurs as nothing less than rotten special interest, and obstacles to his plans of “transforming” American society, more than likely Obama is committed to his ideological agenda.

Recently, at a Labor Day event, the president said, “anyone who thinks we can move this economy forward with a few doing well at the top, hoping it’ll trickle down to working folks running faster and faster just to keep up, they just haven’t studied our history. We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness.”

How’s that for restoring the confidence of the average business person? All this president seems interested in is creating uncertainty and doubt. In the tax-and-spend world of Obama, his most recent contradiction is that he wants to cut taxes on capital because the economy needs the stimulus — then he wants to raise taxes on capital that he says won’t hurt growth… hmm….

At the top of this article I noted the liberal progressive sense of moral righteousness as an a-priori of cause. I now suggest that their ideologically founded predeterminations have corrupted their ability to tackle the real-world requirement of adaptation to contrary empirical evidence. Hence the ability of a liberal progressive to implement an economic policy not harmonious with their guiding ideology ranges from extremely difficult to impossible.

Obama and his confederates will not allow, even at the expense of the nation’s interest, evidence to the contrary of their political prospective to alter their actions. So let’s throw the bums out of office…


Authored by William Robert Barber


When I hear pundits, reporters, and journalists speak of the never-ending war in Afghanistan, I am a bit puzzled by the meaningfulness of their apparent frustration. Hasn’t this nation of ours, even before its independence, been steadfastly engaged in violent conflict? If Jamestown of 1619 was the beginning of our nation’s English dominated heritage, hence a reasonable starting point to mark the first violent conflict between 1619 and 2010, how many wars, lethal conflicts, police actions, battles, insurrections, civil uprisings, and violent engagement has this nation of ours participated in? So, if we have been in Afghanistan for these many years, the length of this particular engagement should not be of particular concern. With time as its witness, history has proven that if it wasn’t Afghanistan, it would simply be in a different geography and name.

History has documented, not only for America, that armed conflict is a constant. The only variables are intensity and geography. The issue of concern, for pundits, reporters, and journalists cannot be the length but the reason.


On August 3 of this year, Geithner soberly communicated that the $862 billion government stimulus was still rolling out, business investment was booming, and the economy was poised for sustainable growth. Really! The treasury secretary along with the Obama economic team actually believes their lying eyes. The economic team endorsed a Keynesian economic application to this recession. In essence, the Keynesian approach plus the Obama twist is to print more money and give said printed money away to unionist friends. Of course the Obama twist includes a giveaway to union projects, empathetic political affiliates — and by no means leaves out in the cold their overweight pension impaired bureaucracies.

According to WSJ’s Review & Outlook, Geithner suggested that “government spending can stimulate growth by triggering private demand”, that “tax rates are irrelevant to investment decisions”, that “waves of new regulations can be absorbed by business with little impact on costs or hiring”, and that “politicians can assail capitalists without having any effect on the movement of capital.” Hmm…

President Bush and his economic team, headed by Secretary Paulson, also strutted unabashed in the same economic direction albeit, timidly, with much less of the taxpayers’ cash. Nevertheless, the financial implication was exactly the same waste of money / add on to the federal deficit. Culpable in all of these spend-more policies of Bush & Obama is congress and the aggressive yea votes of both political parties; amazingly, the spending continues as if rain is not wet.

A majority of elected representatives, for a very long time to the present, from one election to another, have successfully navigated thru the self-created shoals and reefs of what they say to get elected versus what they do once in office. The experience indicates that a politician’s loyalty to ideology, political party, and getting reelected trumps representing the common prudent interest of their constituents.


The time maybe close at hand to form an independent political party; this formation is still out there in the distant future. Presently, we have a choice between the Republican and the Democratic Party; of the two, I choose the Republican. But I swear, if they screw this up like they did the last time…


Authored by William Robert Barber

We are getting closer to the November elections. Democrats are desperate for a cause to enable their constituents and disable the conservatives. The focus of concern for the Obama brand is on the independent voters. The liberal progressives need something better to rally the voters than “it could have been much worse.” The blame-it-on-Bush approach is wearing very thin and despite all of that good news, I am still very anxious. Things happen!

This midterm election is a definitive means test of the Obama administration; in fact, such test also applies to the constituents of conservative and independent ideals. Particularly for the conservatives, the task is all uphill. Deep inroads need to be made into a heretofore super majority of Democrats within in the House of Representatives. More Republicans are needed in the Senate. And for very sure, considering 2011 being a census year, there will be contesting over congressional seats; therefore, the governor races are of heightened concern.

The goal is clear: Stop the Reid reelection and stymie the Pelosi and Obama liberal progressive juggernaut by voting out their elected acolytes.

There are so many interesting developments brewing… Arizona’s immigration case is heading for appeal, the contesting in federal court over the healthcare mandate forcing individuals to purchase health insurance, the posiible extension of all or part of the Bush tax cut, offshore oil reinstatement or not, the tug-of-wills over the wars in the Middle East, Iran’s nuclear insistence, and N. Korea’s belligerence. How will the Obama administration field all of these issues of grave concern?

And of course the grand questions: How will the people of the United States electorally respond to the continuance of the liberal progressives’ policy agenda? Will the voters cast the Democratic majority out in favor of the Republicans or will the response to the Obama progressives be measured and mild? Will Nevada and Kentucky vote the Tea Party candidates in or not?

No matter what the results are of the November election, 2011 will be a volatile year. No matter what happens, Democrats are going to be displeased with the election. Unless the Republicans gain a significant voting percentage — if not the majority — they will be less than satisfied. And no matter the outcome of the election, there is still Obama in the White House… dissatisfaction will be ruling the year.

It will all heat up to a frenzy in September and October; today the Republicans seem to have the upper hand… but tomorrow is not November 2, so I am in my hopeful mode as I strive to cede hope into faith!


Authored by William Robert Barber

In the beginning, before attorneys, respect was earned by savvy performance. A clan member’s credibility was inextricably tied to that person’s aptitude, physical skill, and sagacious conduct. The subjective and relative aspects of life were nonexistent or blatantly ignored in favor of attending to the undeniably difficult challenges of living. There was very little bullshit… remembering, it was before there were any attorneys. An individual earned their keep; family was the only, albeit limited of entitlements. One of the most prestigious of values was to attain – by individual merit – the respect of family and clan. All was brutal, but naturally bona fide by an inherent truthfulness of purpose.

My assumption is that one fine day the strongest of the clan decided that it was in his specific interest to improve his position. Gathering his acolytes, he plotted and planned. In the first cause he guilefully (indication that this was the first attorney) put forth the argument that enhancing his specific interest was actually an embrace of everyone’s interest. In the second cause he offered with clear disambiguation the certainty of coercive reprisal to anyone thinking anything other than conformity to his will. He noted, after preemptively eliminating those that might contest his will, that all members owe fidelity to his leadership. Indeed, his governess required obedience and such obedience was indistinguishable from fidelity to the clan.

Once assured of overwhelming power, he ordained a government and had that government declare that henceforth, a percentage of each clan member’s production and service would be pledged to the clan’s government or its designates. Everyone agreed — that is, until they disagreed. And from that period on, the governing of the clan by the ‘connected,’ supported by the utility of taxation and the omnipotence of coerciveness, has been a contestable factor of consternation.

Obviously, a robber baron (the government) would remain poor and ordinary if he robbed only from the economically disadvantageous. The objective of any robber baron is to rob from the wealthy. In order to rob from the wealthy (more than just once), the baron must devise a plan of/for complicit compliance. In other words, the wealthy must, by some agreement of understanding, be in general compliance to be robbed.

Initially the governed were willing to cede a portion of their monies for protection; of course the first payment of protection was paid to the robber baron. Once the ongoing payment percentage was agreed upon and the wealthy satisfied, persons and institutions within the wealthy lobbied the robber baron for exceptions and other considerations. The robber baron, recognizing the value, willful complicity, encouraged such exceptions and considerations; hence the invention of statutory corruption and need for political parties.

The wealthy, noting the constancy of economic change prompted by an ever changing world, looked to encumber by pecuniary means the not as wealthy, even the more than simply poor, to share in the payments to robber baron. Therefore, as the serf evolved from indentured to ownership, Gutenberg’s technology circulated, gun power applied, the bible translated into English, the steam engine having transformed transportation, and literacy booming, the not quite as wealthy grew from a few to a multitude. The peoples of Europe, as if flamed by a catalyst of kinetic energy, sprung into a society of skilled labor, guilds, merchants, traders, lawyers, and practitioners of government service. In short order they shared in the monetary burden of supporting the robber baron; indeed, many even unseated the robber baron for their own sake.

The contesting, the mix of various persuasions between and amongst the influential, the wealthy, the almost wealthy, and the less than wealthy from within and without, continues. The fight is over the general public’s heart, mind, and most importantly cash. However, in the dynamics of today, a person’s credibility versus the clan’s mores, a person is not inextricably tethered to sagacious conduct or to a willful tenacity for the individual to earn by performance the respect of society. In the politics of today the measure of dynamic, positive governing has more to do with money raised, the cajoling of required elements and supportive variables by means inclusive of extralegal; to many politicians, the winning includes a service to a political ideology irrespective of constitutional scofflaw or truthfulness.

For the many professional politicians, the paid executives of political parties and their cadre of non-elected, America is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. For these servitors of the robber baron, America is simply a contest between red and blue.

The robber baron has (per regulations, fees, and taxes) subjected the meaningful essence of private enterprise to the whim of his appointed hierarchy. Within the hubris of purposefully created government ambiguity, congress has outdone itself in the recently legislated documents that in its befuddlement rival the U.S. Tax Code. Elected representatives do not read the very legislation they vote on, contemplation of legislative effects is almost nonexistent, politicians willfully distort, the medium is bias, and attorneys have overrun congress… Only the people can change all of the above; the next two national elections maybe the most important in this nation’s history. Liberal progressivism must be soundly defeated if America was ever to be restored as the exception amongst nation states.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Government is a tool; a utility composed of Byzantine arrangement wherein the reasoning of objectives and goal meanders between the original intent and the synthesis required for implementation. Forethought is not a legislative requirement of government, nor is prudence, deductive logic, or sensibility. What is compulsory of any government left unfettered is largeness over limited; that its representatives emit the rhetorically melodious explanation versus the plain and specific. And most importantly, by means variable and deliberate remain deceptive to one and all. Because government is captained by humans, it is inherently, by simply operating, resolved to conclude a significant portion of its conveyance of authority in ways and means corruptive. The result of such corruptive behavior, whether delivered within or outside of statutory compliance, breeds ineptness and such will always result, in some measurable way, to some unintentional consequence.

An excellent example of government inherent statutorily compliant corruption is the recent passing of the financial reform bill. Imagine passing ‘new laws’ and allowing Fannie and Freddie to remain intact? These two government sponsored enterprises have liabilities in excess of $5 trillion; they have already cost taxpayers nearly $150 billion, with no end in sight.

Another example is the $6 billion in federal subsidies to the Ethanol industry. According to the Wall Street Journal, it costs taxpayers $1.78 in ethanol incentives to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by one gallon or nearly two-thirds of the current average retail gas price. This subsidy has been going on over four decades. What private company would continue to fund such a foolish use of cash, time, and resource?

Government is also, demonstrated by its coercive manner, decisively, omnipotent. Its behavior is often duplicitous, contradictory, and in the execution of its responsibilities and obligations costly of time and money. A common characteristic of government is its intrinsically insatiable requirement for more power. There are no exceptions to this definition of government.

Lincoln’s descriptive: “Of the people, by the people, and for the people” is a myth. The constitution is real enough but the interpretation is subject to persons of power. It is not institutions of power because institutions in the finality are managed, influenced, and dominated by persons. The only mitigation to the power of persons is not even the rule of law because that, too is subject to the persons of power. Hence, mitigation of government’s insatiable need for more power can only reside in the super active participation of citizens — and there is no such participation.

There has been no industrialized nation that has not been corrupted from within. Some of the time the corruption is uprooted or abated, sometimes it grows and blossoms under a different title or color; but in the eventual, by means legal or extralegal, the original design, usually in pieces and parts, is forsaken for the promise of better. Surely a rational person would conclude that the promise of better is a consideration of interest; but such a promise must be approached with prudence and certainty, or the penalty may include the everlasting loss of what was once so profoundly exceptional.

There is a moral consequence to government action; if such action is detrimental to the recipient, it matters not at all if the government is a republic or a totalitarian régime. Government has the capacity for moral sinfulness; such sinfulness would include a citizen’s loss of liberty, freedom, and most profoundly the citizen’s impairment of individual choice. All governments, regardless of type, have the innate capacity to deprive citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I believe that the Obama government is pushing and pulling us citizens into a socialistic state wherein the law is some liberal progressive’s interpretation of social justice; wherein economic decisions and systems are constituted by some committee’s moral regard, and where the policies of individual liberty and freedom do not trump government incursion and ingress into the providence of societal governess.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Without the votes of three Republicans enjoined with Democrats, a senate filibuster would have blocked the newest of Obama’s remakes of American business; a legislative remake that must be handed off to 10 regulatory agencies with the discretion to write the rules managing the practice of finance. In other words, only in time will the details of the lawful legislation be known. Noticeably, this time line of agency discretion to write the rules will stretch over the next election wherein, if the Republicans are successful in the November election, the sun rises and sets as predicted (“if” has such an unsettling whimsicalness of a meaning) and insanity maybe rejected in favor of sensibility.

The cost and effect of ObamaCare is, day-by-day, stripping off its pretentiousness in favor of its actualities.  Soon the legislation, bare and obvious, will not be able to dance to the whim of Obama rhetoric. The process of implementation will uncover the loosely construed tenants and covenants of this voluminous, ill-defined contextual of a law — a law whose real world ramifications can no longer be disguised or falsities cleverly distorted. ObamaCare was instituted by legislative “hook and crook.” The policy was pushed and pulled but certainly not as a sensible, pragmatic attempt at solving certain health care reforms, but to facilitate the Obama goal of institutionalizing their brand of American Socialism.

The forthcoming election will define the merits and measure of their success. I predict that their heretofore façade of “In the public interest” will be exposed as simply another ideologically founded political maneuver of liberal progressive persuasion.

This country of ours has many very pressing problems, but definitely in competition for the number one spot is our economy. The Federal Reserve, according to those in the know, has been quantitatively managing the money supply while noting the sensitivity of not prompting uncontrollable inflation. As part of its strategy, until just recently, the Feds have been buying assets in the form of mortgage and U.S. government bonds, 1.5 trillion dollars worth. It does look like the economic outlook has deteriorated since the Feds’ last meeting. But in the meantime, the homebuyers tax credit has expired and the Feds, as they predicted months ago, stopped buying up excess mortgages.

The one item of grave concern, an underlying cause and effect of a humdrum economy, is the high unemployment rate. The Democrats can give away money by paying for current consumption in the form of extending unemployment benefits; they can increase government employment, support union agendas… but all they can do in the private sector is create uncertainty and increase taxes.

Mr. Bernanke has sworn that he will not monetize the debt. Hmm… that must mean he does. Monetizing the debt is an action by the Feds to convert debt into available currency. This can be achieved by issuing securities or simply printing money. For years, banana republics have been utilizing this fiscal policy as means by which the reconciliation of debit is satisfied. Since the central bank is not audited, no one really knows the monetary status of this nation — possibly, we have too many bananas in our republic.

All the professional guessers seem to align with their particular socio-political ideology in the first cause; then, in the second, they access and analyse the specifics of the issue. Hiding behind – and often within – their academic accreditations, they shield themselves from the pragmatic and common solutions. This does not protect them from the ‘just as accredited’ and their often unrelentingly mean spirited assaults on the veracity of their person or their merits. But it does lessen the number.

The layperson, lacking the sophistication of the few, the accredited, and the all-knowing… contemplates. The people uninhibited by the effects of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale wonk and therefore the resulting confusion of purposefully misdirected ambiguity, an ambiguity, perpetrated by ‘gnomes of the non sequitur’ posing as professors, is set aside in favor of seeking a practical solution. These taxpayers, these non-accredited laypersons of common education and common means, lacking a doctorate in economics, have written no books nor had their papers published in the haute culture of professional acceptance, are left to the simple measurement of the factual. Unsustainable public debt, current and future, the predictable heavy lifting of Obama healthcare encumbrances, the cost of administrating Obama’s bureaucratically enriched domestic policies, they count the number of unemployed, and they feel the incursion of the central government in the form of legislation, general unfairness, taxes, and fees.

And the Obama Democrats wonder why their hero’s poll numbers are dropping in favor of dissatisfied… well, soon, a little more than 3 months, we will all know the disposition of the electorate.