Authored by William Barber

All governments are corrupt. Therefore, it is just a matter of time and situation before some member of government, prompted by a willful desire for a dominance of influence and authority, either elected, or appointed; contrives a process, a legalese, a crafted machination artfully designed or overtly extralegal, to subvert the spirit and meaningfulness of the constitutional republic.

“The people” no longer influence, manage, or determine (by their vote) the competency, courage, or honesty of their government. The citizens of America — in substantial numbers — are distracted from and notably ignorant of their obligations of citizenship. They have fashioned a yawning behavioral disinterest in the workings of the elected and appointed. It is the few, the educationally endowed elite, the politically connected, the politicized national media, and their pundits who posit their ideological determinations as if a certainty. Inundated with information, overwhelmed by voluminous and often contrary data, the citizen surrenders to the beckoning of pretty words and pleasantries of style. 

How else could one explain Hillary’s legacy? In the era of emails, cell phones, and archived video, she is the boldface practitioner of lies and deception. As Secretary of State, she enabled the beginnings of a purposeful fraud in the inducement when she participated in the Iranian agreement. With complete disregard of State Department rules and regulations, she stored top-secret inter-department emails on a private server. She unilaterally destroyed 30,000 or so of her emails… I could go on.

Nonetheless, useful idiots applauded her words and laud over her being. This mockery of lawfulness by an officer of the republic is one example why a democratic republic cannot function as designed. Similar to the beckoning that tested the sobriety of  Ulysses, Sirens of promises composed of beautiful words and satisfying wondering sway us, “the people,” into the comfort of pleasantly applied subjugation. Progressives like Obama and Clinton create an ambiance of rainbows and butterflies. They declare that life is good, all is as intended. These progressives only require a half measure of a citizen’s freedom and several pounds of individual liberty as the fare.

I have no idea of Trump’s political viability, his governing intentions, or even his ability to govern. However, what I do know with absolute certainty are the governing intentions of Hillary: They are French in enterprise, Italian in competency, and Machiavellian in scope.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The basis of Donald Trump’s most recent accusation is idiotic, ill-tempered, and sixth grade level silly. This billionaire businessperson with a chip on each shoulder is impervious to the concept of accepting sage advice. He is obviously ignorant of our country’s founding and ever-evolving moral principles. Notably, Donald Trump is an aimless chaos initiator bent on destroying the Republican Party while delivering the presidency to Hillary Clinton.

As with many conservatives, I was — considering the electoral alternative — warming up to the concept of a Trump presidency… Well that idea was flushed away with his scurrilous attack on the Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican decent.

The Trump storyline is so fantastical and surreal, if submitted as a novel or screenplay no producer would credit the story as possible. Why would a man on the verge of his political party’s nomination publicizes a civil case (of no bearing in the election) openly disparage the presiding judge? I suggest this conduct is an example of behavioral dysfunction; this behavior is clinically irrefutable. Mr. Trump’s accusatory outburst against anyone that does not like him or disagrees with his perspective almost immediately fuels a genuine tenacity. The afterthought of tenacity prompts a narcissistic resolve to behave in the persona of a conceited asinine.  

The Republican Party cannot nominate this ignoramus. The rules committee must change the rules to disfavor Trump’s ability to win the nomination on the first ballot. The delegates must not elect this individual to represent the Republican brand.

Surely, there must be a republican leader with enough intestinal fortitude to realize it is his or her duty to stop this behaviorally dysfunctional person.

Dark clouds are forming…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Where, oh where is the real conservative deal — or should I say candidate? I cannot find the evidence wherein the conservative principles presently expounded by Romney, in the present match up to his governing record much less his past policies and documented positions. My inclination is to believe that he really wants to be president and he goes about the tasks of attaining the office as if it was a corporate marketing endeavor. Therein his campaign strives to increase market share by appealing to popular sentiments rather than ideals that come from their candidate’s soul conviction. In other words, I have a hard time believing he is an ideologically sound conservative. Now of course he is Redwood trees taller, better, stronger, and much more integral to my governing values than Obama; so if that is the choice, the choice is easy.

I assume this is the situation where the bone eats the dog; in order to win an election the appeal must be wider/broader than a politician’s core political ideology. Presumptively that in real terms must mean lying, deceiving, and generally dancing about one’s core beliefs are the voter expectation of a politician. Only in vague generalities does the voter come to understand the inner mindset of the candidates’ particulars. When it comes to actually governing, well, voters have been influenced to understand that there are way too many factors and unanticipated influences to predict a politician’s ideological sway. My response to such nonsense is Gobbledygook…

I am inclined to support Perry over Romney because he blunders about with his truthfulness; his hyperbole, even his inaccurate and misinformation, come from his heart. He does not read from a TelePrompTer; he actually addresses the question asked… I find that amazing. He is a glad handier. He is a populous stirrer upper but he does so, even when he is wrong, from conviction. He knows what it is like to be poor. Hell, he even knows what it is like to be a Democrat.

Admittedly, he will have a tougher rough beating Obama because he may not appeal to a wide enough ideological swath of independents; but in this situation, the freshman senator from Florida would be extremely helpful as Perry’s VP.

When it comes to governing, we the people always get what we deserve. Although I have a special disregard for the contributions of certain boneheaded ever-electable representatives of congress, all the liberal progressives who in the interest of forcing a governess that simply does not work, and those attorneys in staff that really distort the meaning of governess by the people, one must remember and emphasis that the goal of us conservatives is to win a 60-plus majority of the Senate, maintain the majority in the House, and oust Obama from the White House. I do believe America is counting on such an election outcome.


Authored by William Robert Barber

I have been, for the last week, on business in Ireland. Today after frisking about with the Irish people, gazing and stomping on their generously forested land of gently rolling green country-side, driving through narrow village streets dotted along the hill and dale; enjoying many a stimulating discussion intertwined with good food and ale. I am heading home.

Interestingly, the economic concerns of Ireland and indeed all of Euro-land, are about the same as they are in America. Everyone I met and every publication I scanned emphasized the painfully high unemployment, the lack of bank-funding, dismal economic growth, and the sad, bitter effects of the almost complete devastation of real-estate value.

Entertainingly, the blame-story is similar to what we Americans channel. When the marketplace puts money or even the illusion of putting money in peoples’ pocket, everyone is unquestioning and quite pleased. However, when money has stopped flowing in and in fact starts to flow out or not flow at all, well, fault is seeking a dance partner. The people negatively affected point the finger at any and all except their own blindly excessive spending indulgences. The Irish – just like us Americans – readily exclude their most recent willy-nilly mindless behavioral addiction to a belief and practice in nonrecourse consumption.

When specifying the present American financial and real estate downturn I suggest that one should review the fuel that created the economic boom-cheap money and debt. The collateral was a commodity known as real estate and equity market trades and holdings. When private enterprise is managing its own risk and the speculator-public accepts their own risk, individually, the winners and losers suffer or gain. But when government and their cohorts public-private unions gets in the middle to install a “fair playing field,” to “protect the worker or the investor,” or enact by law a third-party ideal of fairness, the taxpayer pays excessively for the governing service.

There is an ancient adage that runs parallel to the biblical saying, “God helps those that help themselves,” inclusively, one cannot by edit nullify stupid or criminal behavior nor can government by legislation bind or mandate the practice of good sense and morality.

Of course these well-known adages do not stop the elected from their task of constant governmental interference. This is best evidenced by the government’s insistence on retaining an ambiguous federal tax code, enacting the excessively expensive regulatory dud Sarbanes-Oxley, the retention of duplicating departments and agencies, the persistence of continuing federal policies that bully risk-takers and reward losers. The systematically applied coercive pushing and pulling by several Congresses since the Eisenhower administration has driven private enterprise straight to attorneys, litigation, and bureaucratic discombobulating.

The liberal progressives in line with congress’ Barney Frank have for years forced private banks in the direction of mal-ginned imprudent lending practices. For the elected, evidence to the contrary of their ideal, be damned; the policy of government in their eye’s is as a matter of policy, to taxpayer finance a seemingly never-ending series of perverse societal contrivances that have, in the present, after decades of persistence, finally, impaired the nation.

When one combines such governmental action with a popular consumption frenzy stirred and prompted at every opportunity by a political leadership motivated solely to attain or maintain public office; the tangibles of sensible and pragmatic are pushed into the delete file in favor of the intangible and deceptive. These rascals, the elected Noblesse oblige, and their allies such as public employee unions, the New York Times, National Broadcasting Company, all liberal progressives, and labor lobbyist in general, are consistently remissive of applying prudent real-world principles to the issues and concerns of governing the peoples’ money. Either consciously purposeful, or permissively naïve, political leaders have, for many years, mislead the voting public as to the nation’s economic disposition. Experience has documented, the elected class will lie, cheat, and steal to and from their constituencies.

When reviewing the governing of particularly democratic-republics one is inclined to believe in the governing tenants of righteousness, particularly in these countries the predominately sane champions the irrational. Corruptive behavior in and by government is assumed to be spotty at best. After all, one is led to believe that in democratic-republics reason dominates the unreasonable, but low and behold, instead we find the non-sensible overwhelming good sense.

Upon surveying the historically documented factual pieces and parts that lead to the 2008 recession one could conclude that it was if the world of the otherwise prudent and rational was managed from the Emerald City by the hedge fund wonk, The Wizard-of-Oz.

Bloated property assessment permitted the government to tax and squanders more of the people’s money; equity pricing egregiously mismatch derivative to market value, and the wholesale of government policies explicitly designed to give away other people’s money. Could there have been another outcome? If governments’ print money, if fiat currency is forced into acceptance, if tax revenue lags behind governmental distribution of that revenue how could there actually be a functioning economy? No one with enough political juice considered the cost verses the benefit; everyone was chasing the butterflies, enjoying the rainbows, and receiving their pot of gold.

Captivatingly, the financially affected, withstanding the history of government stupidity, the government’s culpability in a total lack of sensible, rational, prudent, and reasonable governess, these persons, still contemplate government as the quick and easy solution. I am particularly astounded by the incredulous insistence of not just the financially affected populous but institutional leaders from bankers to insurance executives, economist, and broker-dealers they all create a novel wherein they write-in, admittedly, in degrees of measurable variance, governmental agencies and departments as the solution-protagonist.

The solution to our economic malaise is simple. Learn to find the bait, fancy the bait onto the hook, choose a line and pole; discover a place where fish are to be found, throw the baited line into the water, catch the fish, prepare the fish, cook the fish and eat it. Now all of this is to be done without paying a licensing fee, and entrance fee, a poundage tax, governmentally assisted learning, or some federal agency telling you how to eat the fish.

In other words, government shut up, do less, and stay out of my business…


Authored by William Robert Barber

As the stock markets of the world kinetically vibrate, setting a pace of newly found extremes for sell-off and buy-in, investors surrender to the bafflement of two offers: The first is to accept the blindfold, and the second is to stare-down the oncoming bullet as it races for the spot just above one’s nose.

Speculators of genuine risks are buying gold futures, coin, and billion by following the golden rule for speculation: Prices rise when buyers significantly outperform sellers — of course the opposite rings just as true.

Remember! The purchase of gold does not add capital to a company’s balance sheet; these treasures will not fund research of discovery or invention. An ‘investment’ in gold is a bet founded on the principle of hoarding.

King Midas regularly counted his gold; but he gained no material benefit from the gold until he made a purchase. Obviously, as soon as Midas transacted a purchase, he not only had less gold but the price of gold as a necessity of market dynamics depreciated. When one sells ones — gold which is a requirement in order to attain a product or service — one does so by a conversion to fiat currency. In other words, eventually one is going to sell gold for legal tender; otherwise, there is no benefit to holding on to gold. If I was a holder of gold I would want to be first in line on the selling side because if I am not in the front, the price of gold will be far less valuable to me standing somewhere in the middle of the sellers pack.

Licensed professionals bandy about their theories and conjecture their forecast. All of these suit-and-tie personalities act as if they were/are the bona fide harbingers of repute, each exuding the confidence of an “I knew my horse would win” bettor; of course this is only after the horse race was over.

It is my belief that genius, like wisdom, and luck are results that can only be accurately measured in arrears. No one knows — one only guesses that one knows.

A hypothesis, a tentative explanation of a phenomenon, is a best guess effort to explain what we do not know for sure. I believe all of these professional guessers are sincere hypothesist striving to analyze and present a reasonable rational commentary on an event that quite possibly could be wholly unreasonable and irrational.

The statist that occupy the White House lament that the Stimulus was too small, not big enough because they miscalculated the enormity of the economic Bush debacle. Their premise of finding the economically viable light and the way has not moved one iota from their insistence that Keynesian economics is the answer to the woeful status of present US economic ills.

In keeping with that belief they also believe that the federal government can directly create private sector jobs. Well, the certainty is that the federal government cannot directly create jobs. Other than covertly enhance or overtly embrace governmental bureaucracy, possibly bedfellow, even more openly the unionization of America, government involvement in private business can only increase the cost of doing business, stymie productivity, and – when coupled with Obama’s resolve on super-regulating enterprise – government can only belay growth.

I have no idea why we need to relearn the simple and palpable over and over again. Capitalism is the most potent of economic methodologies/systems. Currently, the federal government is managed by progressive persons who depend on an ever-increasing manifest for governmental largeness; they depend on the viability of increase taxation as a matter of policy. Factually, liberal progressives could not sustain their raison d’être, their howl in the light of a full moon if government is limited in operational scope. Progressives require a big fat bureaucratically enriched government in order to inhale their brand of oxygen.

This American economy will overcome the Keynesian policy of where-for-naught as it intersects with the Obama administration’s design of social justice and class warfare; it will rise above the ills of the EU malaise, it will, with the aid and assist of the Supreme Court, withstand the costly breach of good sense by rescinding ObamaCare. All is to be rightfully settled in the election of 2012.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Obviously, the goal of the fathers (of this republic) was to design a governing body founded on the principle that competing political elements expressed in variant policies, ideologies, and personalities, (often articulated by intense bickering) could find a forum for unfettered discourse. In the interest of achieving such a goal they created a republic that allowed and reflected, within the confines of the constitution, the means and inspiration for competing political ideals.

The principle of stimulating competing ideas is the essence of freedom and individual liberty. The governing of the republic was inextricably tethered to democratic values and such are wholly dependent on the right of discourse. The laws of this republic armed the people directly, and through their elected representatives, indirectly, in the pursuit of consensus with the efficacy of persuasion. In other words, the effectiveness of citizenry persuasion is the merit that prompts consensus; knowing, by design, that without consensus persuasion has no practical application. So to insure tolerance for and of another’s perspective the founders took into account a lawful process that permits multiple “bites at the apple” whereby failing to harness the required consensus is not necessarily fatal.

This lawful process was integrated within the constitution wherein the binding arbitrator is regular elections. In addition to elections and as a stand-by supplement to abate populous agitation there are petitions, referendums, and the specific right to recall an elected official. Matter of factually; there is a real, within the grasps, reasonable alternative for redress from the losing side of a debate for a particular consensus. Elections vent frustration, discombobulate the empowered, and empower the electorate… well, that’s the intent.

There are many differences of approach between this nation’s political parties; but the one commonality that both political parties have promoted is the expansion of the federal government. Proportional; some would evidence as disproportional to governmental expansion, is the coercive means that government has at its disposal to willfully impose it power upon the people. The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice are only two examples of very intimidating governmental agencies. Since the administration of John Adams the executive branch has by means within the constitution and by means contrary to the constitution the underlying result as always been the unyielding growth of the federal government. The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 were passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress to weaken the Democratic-Republican Party by restricting speech. No citizen could express in any form a scurrilous accusation against the president or congressional members; interestingly, the Vice President (Thomas Jefferson of the opposing party) was fair game. By 1802 the act was repealed or allowed to expire at term. The point being that politician(s) are not to be trusted with power; they will betray the meaningfulness of the constitution is it suits their perception of need.

For years the conduct of government was to spend more than it receives in revenue. Only through other than GAPP accounting did the Clinton administration demonstrate a surplus.

So now this run-away-with-the-people’s-cash government has run out of allotted funds. Naturally, this has happened over and over before. Indeed, each time the elected would use the forum to spat out accusatory accusations at the party in power for increasing the national debt. This phony nonsensical disingenuous plays well in the capital; that is until spending extended over 14 Trillion. Now the political parties are requiring an additional 2 trillion; that served up some attention.

The concept of competing ideas has run into a brick wall; the idea of compromise has evolved into political steadfastness. The Democrats want to find the money to keep their entitlements alive by increasing taxes; the Republicans say the problem is not one of taxing to little but spending too much. The progressives want a European style governing entity while the conservative want limited government. Legislatively there is a very real impasse. This impasse can only be settled by the 2012 election until then the party that controls one-third of government must negotiate with the party that controls two-thirds of government. Both parties have worked very hard to put this nation’s finance in its current placement; hopefully, the conservatives will get as much as possible in spending cuts with no increase in taxes. The progressives believe that fighting entitlement reform and enabling class warfare will help them in the next election… indeed, it just might.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Common folks are now concerned about the nation’s sovereign debt, specifically as such concern applies to the fire-breathing monstrous interest-only service on the outstanding debt. When one couples the penalty of interest with the unsustainable, ever increasing cost of governing, rightfully the focus today is on the prudence of raising the debt ceiling without lowering the cost of governing. Of course, this cost-of-governing question has always been answered by an affirmation of “yes” with a behavior of “no”.

Historically, politicians and the appointed of all color, shape, and size have with uncontested consistency found it easier to print money and trade votes for underfunded services than to address the specific challenge. With equal consistency they have created a top-down strategy that simply results in fiscally impaired programs that knowingly, beforehand, promise more than they can fulfill. With PR fanfare they have created departmental bureaucracies that are addicted to doubling down on stupid. These very same politicians, with no hesitation or concern, bank on the public’s acceptance that its issued fiat currency is non-inflationary. All the while, thoughtlessly, in the unending pursuit of raising capital for today’s expenditure, these elected and appointed leaders have inflamed the probability of inflation when they collateralize multiple tomorrows’ tax revenue. These politicians in league with ‘others’, who perceive benefiting from such policies, are very creative; for instance, in lieu of pledging real assets, these financial genies created the securitization of air. They have spooned into the Social Security Trust Fund by replacing the cash for use by the general fund with Treasury promise to pay notes. The Federal Reserve buys Treasuries from the secondary-market with printed funds. And everyday, Fannie and Freddie borrow more monies from taxpayers to satisfy their operational needs. Does any of this sound like a fiscally sustainable system?

They have done all of this while openly competing with private enterprise. The governments of this nation have legitimized, endorsed, and benefited from the distribution of games of chance, cigarettes, and liquor, and earn at least a third on every gallon of gasoline. Let’s agree that this government of ours is the most aggressively prolific of robber barons. And now they want the right to spend more because they have spent all of 14 trillion.

The current debt limit debate has come down to Obama’s pestering for the next election, the newly elected House members sticking to their promise, and the electorates interpretive of the very ethos of what defines America. It has been said by those in the know that “the debt ceiling, means unknown in the present, will be raised. The crises as described by the media will pass.” Withstanding all of that, this next election is a defining affirmation for our country. If Obama should win this one election, liberal progressivism will be validated; the effect of his victory, at a minimum, disabling the conservative momentum. At a maximum it will push the philosophy into dormancy.

This debt limit debate is aligned with a greater purpose. Obama “the great pretender” is focused on reelection. The main stream media, on this go-around, are not so much endorsing Obama as they are in support of liberal progressivism and against the Republicans. Truthfulness takes a backseat to fear mongering, demagoguery, and whatever it takes to win the election. This time compromise will not satisfy the beast nor the paladin.