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

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

By observation it seems that one’s obligatory as an elected official is to communicate. Naturally the communicative effort (preformed by the elected) is encouraged — not wholly, but substantively — to retention of office, raising money for the next election, or to explain a particular vote or policy position. The supposition of all of this communicating is founded on the premise that talking with and listening to the concerns of the constituency is fundamental to the duty of an elective representative. Of course the basis of this supposition is premised on the belief that the elected representative actually writes the thesis of law proposed and that prior to a vote on all legislation the elected has read and comprehended before voting. But now we all know that respective of the representative’s obligatory responsibility to citizen and country the reality of such sworn duty is mythological; the congress has long ago replaced reality with the surreal.

I note the descriptive “surreal” because where else in this world, except politics, does gamesmanship triumph over sensibility? Where else does oratory coupled with handsomeness frequently overwhelm the viability of prudent deduction? Is there another local other than congress wherein corrupting the intended purposefulness of impartial reason considered good politics? Only within the surreal of political affairs are a contrarian who has not produced an alternative solution considered a heroic contributor. Is there another being of reference where the founding document of this nation is dismissed as irrelevant or knowingly subverted by the unilateral decision of justices instead of adhering to the constitutional requirement of an amendment? Where else does the meaningfulness of a politician’s declaration of an anticipated result willfully subordinate to some arcane practice called the legislative process. Thus only after a bill is voted into law do the details emerge? Although practiced, (in my opinion) extra legally, by both political parties, this Obama administration has, with blatant, unprecedented, prejudicially derived ideological resolve, allowed the appointed, staff, and the employed of government agencies and departments to, in real terms, control the legislative and regulatory mechanics of this government’s governing operatives. Is there another metropolis of political wherewithal that could possibly, effectively, compete with the entrenched culture of today’s state bureaucracy?

“Well yes,” declares the Rook to the Pawn. “Please observe,” the Rook points out, “there are hundreds of thousands of business enterprises, as well as, literally hundreds of government owned or controlled entities whose life’s blood is dependent on the gargantuan, coercive, process encumbered, counter-sensible in operational scope, wasteful in sum, that constitute the means to create the ethos that powers this federal government.”

“Are suggesting, Mr. Rook that there is conspiratorial symbioses between those that support the resources to the government, the elected, and non-elected that manage government?”

“Hell yes,” the Rook replies. “It is not just the entities I mentioned previously. Political parties and their politicians buy votes.”

“Now wait a minute,” the Pawn cautions. “I know for a fact that a contender seeking political office is legally prohibited from buying votes.”

The Rook responds. “Dear Mr. Pawn you are naïve.”

“I’m naïve! Well, give me an example in the current era where a politician buys votes;” the Pawn exclaims.

The Rook points out, “in the election of ’08 Obama promised all citizens that paid no federal income taxes up to $1,000.00 if elected. That’s one example; another is unions that represent public employees. They pay millions upon millions of dollars into an electoral campaign for predominately Democrats that eventually they will be sitting across the negotiating table…restructuring pay and benefits for their members. Is that not a backhanded method of buying votes?”

Our America has lost its way…possibly, because of our financial success we have effectually gotten comfortable with the government doing all the thinking for us. We Americans have a difficult time with differentiating reality from the surreal; we are susceptible to the advertisement, that value could be free. That voting to take from those who have more so to give it to those who have less is just fine. And that trusting the government to perform is actually mitigating the risk of self-reliance. Millions of Americans are feeding off the bounty of multimillions of Americans. Clearly, no matter one’s preference of legitimately competing ideologies, there is a number, a percentage of taxes and fees that are excessive. What we are really discussing is that number, that percentage; surely, the rational and reasonable will find a solution to such a discussion.

But if no solution is forthcoming from an agreement; reality will make that decision for us…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Because of the behaviorally dysfunctional narrative that contextualizes American politics and the normative nature of human incongruity, legislation in outcome is often contrary to legislative intent. Indeed, often enough legislative effect is assigned the descriptive: “unintentional consequence.” As a consequence of legislators not reading or comprehending the laws considered for passage, the corollary of such daffy legislative actions are laws enacted wholly outside the reasoning or first cause of the original legislative intent.

Within the providence of politic’s influence is the currency of trade. The idea of pursuing one’s ideals or procedure is ancient. The provocateurs of influencing are artful persuaders. Indeed, regardless of one’s political ideology, the action of politics is founded on principles of persuasion wherein the objective is to garner positive consensus.

For example, public employee unions are interested in negotiating their contracting position with a friend of unions; hence, they spend an inordinate amount of their union dues on selecting and supporting Democratic politicians that espouse a liberal progressive belief. Does it really seem sensible for the taxpayers to have a union advocate representing their fiscal interest? The factor of concern for unions, business lobbyists, and consumer necessitates, as well as every other representative of advocacy, is to attain influence in the pursuit of their particular interest.

Machiavelli would be proud of the numerous elected representatives who play out the role of his prince. Liberal progressive governors have led the way in putting their state’s pension and benefit fund in the fiscal position of financial impairment. This came into being because the governors were beholding to union money and physical support.

Predominate in politics is the statutorily compliant corruptive practice of manipulating the process of law making so to gain a political advantage. There are many examples, one of which is the Obama administration’s granting of exceptions to ObamaCare. Another is this dance over the current budget.

Our constitutional originators understood this normative — and founded a written constitutional platform to navigate the bow of state through the dangerous waters of self-interest, corruptive influence, and re- or misinterpretation of original constitutional purpose. Nevertheless, despite the written constitution and regardless of the checks and balances inherent in the separation of powers, the effectual of the judicial branch and mandatory elections held every two and four years, the meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution, has been subject to distortions of original intent.

As the colloquial saying goes, “things happen;” indeed, things did happen and at this very moment things are happening. Wherein, instead of establishing an everlasting democratic-republic, we Americans are governed by an oligarchic governorship that operates in plain sight within the legislative and executive branches of government. Our economy is more socialist than capitalistic; the taxing system implemented by government is designed to redistribute wealth at the discretion of the federal bureaucracy and member states have ceded their historical sovereignty to the omnipotent power of the central authority. None of this enforces individual liberty and freedom; it seems the weight of the federal bureaucracy despite its obvious inefficiency, its monstrous cost to benefit ratio, federal power and bureaucracy have stymied the means and often the will to change.

The recent election did not go far enough; we now know that without a super-majority in both houses and control of the executive branch, the liberal progressive socialist will impede the conservative agenda to the point of ineffectiveness. The 2012 election seems the only real recourse to the course of Obama and his confederates.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The interdiction of common human behavior is the answer. The question is: How is it possible for us humans to put any faith in an honest, ethical, and morally driven governing system? And since the answer is counter intuitive to the process, we humans must go to plan B. The answer in plan B is founded in the knowing that since the interdiction of human behavior is inherently impossible, it pragmatically follows that (for those of us who are governed) prudent-sensibility requires a distrust of the government, as well as those persons that govern.

Because of most recent or present palpable evidence, (one need only to read the newspaper) reams of historical documentation, and considering that the apparatus of government as well as the operating software is human created and dependant, the plan B answer is a reasonable response to the question.

Nevertheless, since the inception of the republic we citizens have allowed government to grow and assume more and more integration in, for, and about our civic, economic, social, political, educational, and business lives. Today, as a result of such permissive allowances, the average citizen’s dependency on the ubiquitous means and apparatuses of government is profound.

Inclusive of the lack of citizen engagements, even awareness in the affairs of government and its governing, there is an additional prompt; a formal political-economic policy, a doctrinaire, a magisterial representation in the form of an ideology named as liberal progressivism. This ideology is a sociopolitical economic philosophy that has encouraged and sponsored excessive allowances for governmental ingress into the affairs of once free and independent people. Progressives want to create by imposition (if necessary) an equalitarian entitlement state. These believers of progressivism are guided by many beliefs. I will point out two:

The first of their beliefs are that only government can take on the role of a third party arbitrator. Of course the government is not a being. Hence, what the propagators really mean is that it is the government’s designate that will act as the unaligned third party. Now of course the go-to question is, well, who exactly are these designates? The designated representatives are colleague-politicians, staff, which for the most parts are in-house attorneys, and the in-the-loop appointed. It is noteworthy to appreciate that legislation is guided by representatives but actually written by the non elected and hardly ever read by the elected. There is additional aid and assist given by committee members or contemporaries who practice compromise with the understanding that such artfulness means something for everyone, less the loss of a principle or two. In the shadows of the legislative corridors are the ever-present lobbyist/affiliates that exchange legally submitted rewards for just listening to their particular persuasion. No one could possibly configure that there is cash or equivalent for legislative services rendered. The preceding is the government’s rendition of an unaligned third party.

The second substantial belief is one of actually disbelief. The advocates of relying on governmental management of just about every human endeavor does not believe in facilitating the requirements of a bustling private enterprise. Indeed, liberal progressives retain nothing but askance, hesitation, and bitterness for businesses that make “excessive profits.” President Obama said that an annual salary of $500,000.00 is more than enough money for anyone; implying that anything above that amount should be retained by the government.

Federal, state, county, and city governmental bureaucracies have a different slant on making more money; their unions have negotiated salaries, benefits, and pension retirement endowments worth far more than the private sector. The amounts of governmental pecuniary obligations (specifically for pensions) when measured against available present and future funds fall short by billions. If government was a private enterprise, not only would it be forced into bankruptcy but most of its leadership would be in jail. Nevertheless, for the acolytes of liberal progressivism, private enterprise is the one that suffers the wrath of scurrilous denunciation.

Liberal progressives have little to no faith in private enterprises’ ability to manage their moral righteousness or their civic, consumer, and employee obligations and responsibilities. Withstanding, private enterprises’ adherence to their obligations and responsibilities is in fact exactly what private enterprise does day-in-day-out. Indeed, without a profitable private enterprise, there would be no profit to tax and therefore no government to fund.

Yes, of course there have been and will continue to be dastardly, even outwardly evil persons managing private enterprise. Why not, private companies are made up of humans and thus are susceptible to dysfunctional behavior.

Protection in the form of regulation is a function of government; but government cannot regulate good sense or moral principles. Government decides civil and criminal violations, it can enforce laws; government has the judicial process within its governing apparatus, but, because government is created and manned by people, it requires explicit monitoring by a distrustful citizenry.

If we the people are not judicious in our distrustfulness of government, social security funds will be taken out of the lockbox trust and used by congress. Tax laws will be so Byzantine, ambiguous, and counter-sensible that the taxpayer will not understand the very laws they are bound by; the federal government will, by the arbitrary dispensing of tax dollars, encroach and eventually override state’s prerogatives and rights; congress could, possibly, establish budget busting entitlements; and before one knows, billions compounded by billions of dollars will be printed to fund federally owned and operated mortgage lending entities. So let’s keep our eye on the elected, the appointed, the staff, and apparatuses of government; otherwise, the preceding could actually happen.


Authored by William Robert Barber

It is amazing how we citizens accept “a culture” of untruthfulness from our elected or appointed officials; they purposefully disseminate their untruthfulness by means blatant, furtive, abstract, and ambiguous; wherein the only certainty of intent of and for these elected or appointed is, instead of educating or dutifully informing (their constituents), they utilize the facilitators of disinformation, misinformation, and general all-round horse-manure as their communicative contextual.

Particularly frustrating is the arrogance displayed in the execution of their nonsensicalness; they act as if such untruthfulness was the mundane-behavioral normative. Should there not be a law prohibiting any conveyance other than truthfulness by an elected representative to the public? It is a federal crime to lie to the FBI; but an elected official may convey less than the truth and nothing but distortion or misinformation to ’Joe public’ — free of penalty!

This practice (amongst the elected) of ignoring truthfulness in favor of other than the whole truth creates the intrinsically infested putrefaction that inevitably destroys our republic. Nevertheless, voters’ pique in this profoundly manifested behavioral dysfunctional has been brushed aside to the most common of consideration. Presently, because of the electorates’ naïve trustfulness of the political process and broad disregard of their citizenry-obligations, today, at this very moment, this “culture of untruthfulness” is viral and endemic — and for our republic life threatening.

Congress as an institution, the elected, as well as the appointed, are culpable of establishing this environment of circumlocution instead of transparent straight-talk. Our nation’s institutions are suffering from moral legitimacy because the practitioners of governing are less than truthful. There has been a demote reset of the moral denominator; expectations of virtuousness by the governed are impaired by secular dismissal, and the world turns on an axis of Machiavellian function rather than the principles established by George Washington.

Corruption is not a viable economic alternative. It will not work for anyone, including the corrupters. When an elected official conveys anything to the public that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the entire system of governing is adversely affected.

This is another solid reason why limited government is part of the solution; the smaller the government the less places for politicians to hide. There is no substitute for governing honestly, straight-up, and factually; the responsibility of such governess rests with the people. Rascals and empowerment is an elixir much more infectious than nicotine; and like nicotine’s effect upon the respiratory system, empowered rascals will destroy this republic.


Authored by William Robert Barber

A clash is coming. This pending conflict over which opposing political ideal prevails is of paramount importance; the outcome will definitively define the operating meaningfulness of America. This forthcoming contretemps is as critical to the country’s future as the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. The victor defines this nation’s character, ethos, and legislative values for generations to come.

Interestingly, for all of us engaged in this ‘struggle-imperative,’ unlike other conflicts, this pending clash is not open ended. We participants know the exact term as well as the “définitif real” of victory — we also understand that defeat means the end of limited government as a viable concept. The American fortitude of existentialism inclusive of the spirit of American exceptionalism will be discarded in favor of the collective common denominator.

The contesting of the electorate’s heart and mind will start on January 5, 2011 and end on November 2, 2012. The political ideas of liberal progressivism versus conservative limited government principles will be debated in every neighborhood’s nook and corner. From the board room to the halls of academia, from shore to shore, throughout the nation; from the kitchen table to gatherings within the various governing locals: the people of the United States will be asked to bend an attentive ear to a persistent political message. Doubtlessly, the following will occur: Motivated by political advertising and the need to enhance readership or viewership, all venues of media will be taking advantage of the pending bonanza. Unions with lots of cash will summon the faithful so to declare their perspective, the ideologically inspired from the left to right political perspective will pontificate, politicians motivated by the reality of counter-interest victory will lustfully enunciate, President Obama’s “bully pulpit” will typify a persuasion that has run amuck.

Obama’s banner of liberal progressive legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare will be assaulted by the Republicans; the Dodd-Frank legislation is another target of Republican interest. The question is, can the 112 Congress approach all federal government spending, line by line, department by department, which of course includes all programs that would not exist were it not for federal funding, and specifically hound federal departments that simply duplicate function or whose function is deemed unnecessary be shut down?

The Democrats know that their current legislation is in danger only if they lose the presidential election of 2012; so their task will be to thwart all Republican non-funding tactics or formal legislative challenges until that election. Naturally, at the same time the Democrats need to build a positive political consensus amongst the voters as well as successfully fight off Republican efforts to dismantle their accomplishments.

I do believe that if conservatives do not sweep the next election — indeed, the sweep must include a super-majority in the two legislative branches — a politically conservative America will be politically stymied by the liberal progressive minority. From a strictly domestic perspective, liberal progressive in the garb of Democrats is not our only concern. If we citizens are not careful with our votes we will end a nation managed by legal opinions. Wherein congress is set-aside in favor of judicial considerations.

Once this nation accepts the government as the prime mover in all things and items of material value, the core of this nation will soften, our intestinal fortitude will no longer chose the courage demanded of leadership. American leadership will drift and flounder and at the risk of an ever increasingly dangerous world this nation will NOT adhere to its worldwide responsibilities. Instead, America will position itself into a bureaucratic-mediocrity wherein the United Nations will assume the role of world leader.

These next two years leading up to the election of 2012, are critical for this nation and its destiny; at risk is the very meaning of America. Additionally, the futuristic interruptive of liberty, individual freedom, and a truly representative limited-government is hanging in suspension awaiting resolution.