Authored by William Robert Barber

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” A statement presented by Daniel Webster and recited by Chief Justice Marshall in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).

Chief Justice Roberts, circumventing good sense as well as the principles of federalism and the meaningfulness of enumerated powers, concocted contradicting verbiage within a majority opinion so to enable ObamaCare. The justice has unequivocally declared that the federal government has the power to tax its citizenry any amount for any reason, and such requires nothing more than the declaration of congress. This declaration has taken the concept, the spirit, the expressed limitations of government, the idea of State sovereignty, and individual liberty and thrown them under the thumb of the all-powerful federal government.

I fear for the very worse of outcomes; the genesis of this ruling has no constitutional basis…  nevertheless, the ruling is now law. This justice has legalized taxation as a method and source to be used by ‘those in power,’ to coercively alter behavior to suit a particular configuration of “in the public interest.”

Today, all Americans or certain Americans can be singled out to pay a tax to rid a government debt or to finance a future government budget. These Americans will be singled out by the powerful as a lawful means to “spread the wealth.” Following the logic of the unlimited right to tax these assessments will be voted upon by those that do not have as much money; assessments will continue until all wealth is exhausted. Sounds like a liberal progressive economic fairness deductive brought to conclusion.

Before the founding of the republic and since there has been a constancy of contesting for power, from the very beginning those in power have abused their position, and as a result this nation has matched its goodness — often disproportionately– with its wickedness. In other words, no right thinking citizen can trust government or those who manage government. It is an obligation of citizenship to consider government and those that govern with the utmost askance.

An ample example of the abuse of power was the Alien and Sedition’s Act of 1798 wherein the majority in power passed this blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional legislation solely to quell political opposition. In 1942, President Roosevelt affirmed Executive Order No. 9066 wherein Japanese-American citizens were ordered to turn themselves in to the authorities for purposes of internment. In addition to the loss of individual liberty, these citizens lost all property and constitutional rights. Remember: President Roosevelt’s political ideology was liberal progress, a president of the people… well, clearly, not all of the people.

As President Roosevelt proved, executive orders are the tools of the dangerously powerful; even revered leaders, particularly in a time of war and economic crisis, can behave as if Caesar.  It took the election of 1800 to quash the Alien and Sedition’s Act and it will take the election of 2012 to void ObamaCare.

It is time that the spirit and meaningfulness of the 1789 Constitution be reinvigorated and amended to define limited government, individual liberty, federalism, enumerated, implied, and explicit governmental powers! And while we are busy with that task, certain labor laws, civil, and criminal laws need to be either struck or watered down to favor the individual rights over government interference and general bullying.


Authored by William Robert Barber

November 22nd is nearing. The political parties are battling for positioning, the requirements of harvesting voters set aside prudence and truthfulness; all actions no matter how negative subordinates to victory. Candidates are persuading and the voters are advocating or deciding. Unions are nervous. And all the special interests are pitching their perspective. Contrivances dominate. The liberal progressives are begging for more time. The Republicans swear they have learned their lesson from the last period of governess.

None of the pundits believe the Tea Party influence will persevere — or I should say the pundits are hoping. Obama is talking, talking, and talking; Reid is scared. Pelosi is a cross of indignant and oblivious to populous sentiment. The Blue Dogs are striving to be a bit redder than their recent liberal vote’s evidence. The media is soaking up all the political advertising money and the average Joe is really pissed.

Naturally, I am pleased that the conservative viewpoint is at the forefront of electoral dialogue; but if, by the grace of God and a few Marines, the Republicans should capture the majority in the House of Representatives, I would like to see the present leadership regress into the Hinterland and fresh blood take on the reins of governorship. John Boehner had his chance to practice conservative governing; instead, he sided with the liberal doctrine of unlimited government, endorsed an unfunded Medicare with expenditures of over $449 billion, Medicaid as of 2008 at $351 billion. He voted for TARP and other such legislation, creating a policy result of spend, spend, and spend. That also should be the fate of Eric Cantor and all the other Rhinos that permitted the Bush administration to behave like liberal Democrats. An indicator of real change from the standard Republican appropriators like Jerry Lewis of California is whether Mr. Lewis will chair the House appropriations committee. He is senior. Now will Mr. “pork” be permitted to stand as chair?

The simplicity of truth-telling is still beyond the reach of congress’ leadership. No politician will directly address the dark and foreboding meaningfulness of pension fund obligations; the unsustainable federal and state entitlements, the fiscal deficit and its menacing probabilities, Fannie & Freddie still linger eating up billions of dollars as the housing crises continues to deteriorate. The nonelected-appointed are presently writing the consequences of the ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank legislation, tax law is in purgatory, all the while the business sector is contemplating instead of investing. And the liberal Democrats’ only response is “green energy” and” tax the rich”.

For years now I have been asking myself why these super-educated, lawyers, CPAs, educators, and community organizers – these elected representatives – why wouldn’t they sue their universities for fraudulent inducement? From my advantage point, I strongly feel that they should get their tuition money back; clearly, whatever education they received, did not prepare them for leadership. Hell – they can’t even follow! They can create legislation, tax and spend, and they sure work very hard spending millions of dollars to retain or attain office. Oh, they know how to dress nicely, say nothing in thousands of words or less, they are familiar with celebrities, know other important people — and they know how to dance.

Well, November is just around the bend… I am eager to witness change I can believe in!


Authored by William Robert Barber

Over the Labor Day weekend I attended my high school reunion. This is a high school in the bustling midst of colleges and churches in Washington in western-Pennsylvania. Named after the father of this great nation, the town of Washington is proud of its steel and coal heritage. As with every city, there are the better (wealthier) and the worse (poorer) neighborhoods — Washington is no different. East Washington was very much the better. In fact, that section of the city was so influential, it gerrymandered its own school district; hence, East Washington High School.

In 1962 I left the class of ’63 for the Marines. Leaving high school at such a young age was very difficult; but I had no actionable choice. Therefore, the nostalgia for what could have been has, to this day, run the gauntlet of differing emotional intensities, and the act of leaving high school has inundated my mind ever since I boarded that train for Paris Island.

At 17 I was pure of heart and void of mind — perfect material for the Marines. It did not take very long for me to adapt to the military life but I always held the pictures of teachers and classmates of East Washington High School close within me.

So 48 years after I left the 11th grade, I reunited with several of my former classmates. Memories are susceptible to distortions. And from time to time – even in real time – one has just enough of an illusionary glow to reflect the perfect image as indiscernible. As a consequence, after some prompting, our eyes see, to some measure, the influence of yesteryear’s persona. This view of a classmate’s likeness after 48 years of maturity’s effect does have its variance of clarity; nevertheless, once the person’s personality erupts into voice and mannerism, the outer submits to the inner and the classmate of 1962 is revealed.

The reunion experience has reestablished what we all knew: That time is indiscriminate in its destruction. That even for the youthful once-upon-a-time teenager of pure heart and empty head, Father Time will extract its due. Everyone suffers as time ushers us all to a common finality. There is nothing like going to a high school reunion to validate that factual. So for the faint of heart, I would not recommend aging nor attending high school reunions.

There was a little politics in the air… nothing of real passion but I did want to hear more from a former fellow student of East Washington High who was a foreign exchange pupil from Norway. The subject that caught my interest was related to ObamaCare; Britt (sorry if the spelling is wrong) expressed her befuddlement as to why Americans did not want to help their less privileged citizens with healthcare. I did want to follow that up with some more information on her thought process but the situation just did not dictate an opportunity. Britt lives in Norway. From my observation she is a sophisticated, highly intelligent, well traveled person; she is also a person of influence and civil sway. I would be very interested in her reasoning.

For me, the primary issue of consideration is not whether or not an individual American wants to help their less than privileged fellow citizen. The issue for me is the arrogance of the central government to mandate me to pay. By what right of governess do the feds compel me to pay someone else’s healthcare bill? In America, our tradition has always been one of self-governess; in Europe, submission to the rule of government, particularly, after WWII, has been their heritage. Individual liberty for those across the pond has sold its soul to the central planning commission. The practice of socialism has eroded away any spirit of self-determination or the embracing of individualism.

Well, as once said many years ago, “We’re running out of daylight, got to move on.”


Authored by William Robert Barber

Respective of my often made assertion that the Obama administration, along with the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, is an ideologue of liberal progressive doctrine; noting my declarations that Obama is a socialist whose ideal is a plutocratic style to governing. I am still somewhat baffled by the actions and pleadings of his high-ranking supporters.

Do they so misjudge the cultural norms and existential integrity of the American people that they believe they can roughshod downright stupid legislation into law? Do they really believe they can do such things free of resistance? Do they think they can outrun the federal deficit or even the reality of the rising cost of ObamaCare??

The damage to business productivity incorporated within the Dodd-Frank financial fiasco (the title of a WSJ article dating July 1) is self-evident. Could this legislation possibly be enacted? Are we Americans actually going to allow legislation this counter-intuitive to commercial sensibility to become the law of the land? Realizing that the legislation, though written into the form and content of law, is wholly subjective, it purposefully allows the interpretation of the law’s meaningfulness to a committee of unelected regulators. And those are the regulators that will judge the sum of the law’s effect and result. What?! Are we crazy???

The very people that – by their own direct action – helped to bring about the so-called financial crisis are the authors of this new legislation? Who in their right mind would allow these big government advocates-anti-capitalist leftist the authority to write legislation that is so damming to the very business structure of this nation state? Well, I guess we know the answers…

The Obama administration is anti-business and anti-profit; hence they are anti-sensible. Obama declares many untruths at will, embellishing and misdirecting at his on discretion. He denies his own counter-to-economic viability transgressions by simply stating that it could have been worse. He calls out the Republicans as politicians while acting out his leftist political polemics, and at every given opportunity he blames Bush.

This Obama fellow is acting out his role as president but has run out of viable script. His director/writer must be on vacation because he is slipping in the polls. The producer of Obama the President is only interested in the election of 2010 and 12. The Democratic Party is nervous. But Obama, undaunted, seems to believe in his own mythic invulnerability — or he is lost in the wanderlust of his own quest? It might quite possibly be a combination of both….

There are three distinctively factual realities that if voided would impair American sovereignty, hence America’s leadership role. The first is this nation’s requirement to embrace a consistent policy of always maintaining unmatched military superiority. The second is as the largest most dynamic consumer market in the world. Because our nation buys more than any other in the world, we encourage – almost compel – the sellers to American consumers to buy our debt, invest in our infrastructure, purchase our bonds, real estate, and equities. Such international investment strengthens the business scope and veracity of this nation’s economic platform. The third is the fact that this nation is the most innovative, hard-working, and practical in application, direct to purpose and design business network that has ever existed. It is the American concept of implementing business maxims that has built what is known as the “American Dream”. American business is internationally represented by an amalgamation of sophisticated industries, all servicing the buy/sell needs of an ever more demanding world market.

The Obama administration, pushed and pulled by Dodd and Frank, does not enthusiastically encourage such factual realities; indeed, I adamantly believe that the liberal progressives ideologically founded disdain for profit making, as well as the traditional American expressions of liberty and freedom, restrict their mind-set to accept capitalism as the economic system of this country. Obama believes that capitalism confronts and erodes the power of an omnipotent central government and thus endangers the industry of entitlements.

Such conclusions declared above emphasize even more why these persons of leftist, liberal progressive, socialist persuasion must be detached from power…


Authored by William Robert Barber

America is a nation of laws. The foundation of these laws is integrated in the constitution; included — but not replacing, and always subordinate to Supreme Court review — are the historical precedents of judicial resolutions. With more than just a few exceptions, the three branches of this government have worked within the original separation of powers thesis incorporated within the constitutional system of checks and balances. The exceptions to original constitutional intent, though concerning, did not lastingly spike the power of one branch over the other. That is until the administrations of Wilson, both Roosevelt’s, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush the younger, and now Obama. In other words, for the greater part of this country’s recent history, the constitution of original form has been successfully assaulted and vectored to other than original interpretations.

Per constitutional amendments, legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders, politicians have drastically changed not only the face of constitutional interpretation but substantively reconfigured the meaningfulness of the original ten amendments. I do understand the counter party reference to the idea of adaptation to new and unfolding events. That these new and unfolding events necessitate the need for change… yes, I got that message. My contention is that though change is a relevant factor of consideration, the process of initiating such change cannot be trusted. Hence, any change from the original must be subject to forces greater than trusting in congressional legislation, ad hoc understandings, or executive orders.

Although the Obama administration has, by means legislatively perverse (I speak of the recent healthcare initiative that is now law wherein the process called “reconciliation” was the means for the federal government to capture a significant portion of the nation’s economy), simply taken advantage of a legislative means that surely was not within the original constitutional intent, it matters little that the intent of this particular process was created for a different purpose. What matters is that the legislative body made this change from original constitutional intent. The consequence of that change, like so many other legislative enactments, did not anticipate the unintentional; nevertheless, the result worked counter to the interest of the populous and the original intent of the constitution.

Attitudes and mores change. These changes affect societal customs as well as the mind-set of individuals. This into perpetuity of constant transformation (of attitudes and mores) has a direct and effectual influence on the particulars of political systems, politicians, and politics in general.

Immanuel Kant contemplated a behavioral norm postulating that the beginning evolves to the exactness of its end: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and thesis.

For Kant, change is a constant; nonetheless, change seems to identify itself more as a circle than a straight line. In the dictum of Kant, it does not matter: if the line is discerned at the moment of measure, to be vertical or horizontal, the persistence of persuasion is for the line to bend back to its original thesis.

Subsequently, even if Kant’s theory was missing the exactness of truism, one must concede. A societal change of attitude and mores influences individual thought. Such change, much like style within the world of fashion, will triumph over substance and effectually change the original thesis. This factual of human behavior, though a normative inconsequential for fashion, is, as noted in the Obama healthcare process of reconciliation, an excellent example of legislative perversion.

The constitution was designed around the notions that power is an omnipotent elixir; that eventually all politicians and governmental pieces and parts, in the perception of self-service, will yield honesty, integrity, honor, even good sense to its overwhelming dominance. Conclusively, power and the powerful cannot ever be trusted. Thus the constitution, a document that purposefully limits power by dividing the federal government via a system of checks and balances, should never be altered by any process other than either a constitutional convention or the process provided for adding or deleting an amendment.

My presumption is that in the near term, conservative thought will not attain a veto proof majority. Thus the reality of convening a constitutional convention is small, tiny, infinitesimal, well, near impossible; but, maybe we conservatives can abate the perversion of the constitution’s original intent by electing more of like-same ideology. Maybe?


Authored by William Robert Barber

The United States Government of Obama requires every American to prove that they have purchased health insurance; but to ask an immigrant, in compliance with federal law, for documented proof of legality is racist. This hypocrisy, this emblematic descriptive of contrariness, is beyond understanding.

The President of the United States is suggesting, implying, describing, and calling the newly passed Arizona ‘immigration law’ a disuniting of American’s commonality. I do not believe that speaking out against the Arizona Law is Obama’s real intent; in fact, I believe he is calling out his constituency to engage and save him and his political party from the forthcoming electoral debacle. This consummate politician is campaigning at all times.

Liberal progressives and their media bedfellows charge that the Arizona law results in blatant racial profiling and as such equates into an unavoidable and despicable sum of draconian discrimination against people of Spanish surnames. In keeping with that thought, the progressives also believe that implementation of the law requires the policing of all people of Mexican decent and that such marshalling of forces run counter to the base instincts of humanism and the American way of life.

Now, noting that all of these emotionally charged declaratives have no basis of truism; that there is heretofore no evidence to support their accusations… but such does not abate the Liberal Progressives from propagating their lies.

In the interest of creating the façade of rightfulness, pundits of the left state quite affirmatively that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional; of course, no such degree has been adjudicated. Often I forget that these Democrats are harbingers, soothsayers — as well as politicians.

To Obama and his minions the labeling of racist is an obligatory charge toward any person or entity that refuses to drink the Obama additive. However, I do recall these guys and gals being flexible, creative, and genuinely disingenuous. Therefore, when the charge by the lefties is a catchall descriptive void of specifics, (obviously because there is no evidence) then the accusers go to Plan B, declaring that the people of Arizona lack humanistic values.

Of course there is always the shortcut facilitated by the socialist, Marxist, Liberal progressive sagacity of deductive sensibility: Wherein they, (those that know all things material and relevant) the ‘Followers of Obama’, simply state that the Arizona Law is counter to the American way of life. Satisfied with that explanation, the followers move on to Tea Partiers.

Each one of the elected and appointed pledged to uphold the federal constitution and the laws of this land. When varied jurisdictions, cities, states, feds, and the employees therein pick and choose which laws to enforce and which laws to disregard, the nation is at risk of legalist mayhem and civil chaos. The result is a discombobulating of intrinsic American principles. Now marry such with an unsustainable federal debt, a ridiculously ambiguous canard representing itself as the federal tax code, a bloated federal, state, and city bureaucracy, a mounting shortfall of pension funds, two wars, half of the working citizens paying no federal individual income tax, global competition for trade and power, and a socialist in the White House, this nation of ours is in dire need for an electoral revolution.

Oh, and one more thing, the immigration problem in the United States is being caused by Mexicans. These people for the most part speak Spanish, have black hair, brown skin, and will do anything to leave Mexico. They are also hard working, decent, and honest; nevertheless, they are here illegally and need to comply with US Law. Complicit with the non compliant Mexican immigrant is our gutless Congressperson who does not have the intestinal fortitude to respond to a national emergency.

PS: The terrorist who are hell bent on killing us Americans are Islamic by religion and Muslim by culture; they need to be preemptively eliminated as a material threat to our citizens.


Authored by William Robert Barber

There are historians of French governments that have suggested that the French Revolution of 1789 was significantly incited by its deficit financing of the American Revolution. If so, the persuasion of Misters Franklin and Adams cost King Louis XVI his head. Accordingly, President Obama’s majority has been persuaded to vote into place a federal deficit that even after the adjustment for inflation would make good King Louie’s financial underwriting of the American War of Independence a pittance.

Well, at least King Louis had a definitive foreign policy motive; England was a strategic rival. But for the liberal progressives, their motivation is not so clear-headed. Indeed, the progressives’ motive is concealed within an opaque of ideological complexities. Their attempt at explanation results in a continuum of ambiguities and stylistic themes embedded with popularism-like possibilities. Obama and company struggle to define the exact-meaningfulness of the very policies they parade.

In the finality, Obama rests his vision on the socialistic concept of fairness, equity, and the leveling of the playing field. Of course with America being a nation of laws, the implementation of his agenda of socialist-progressiveness requires actions by means legal and extra legal. Note the recent 51 instead of 60 votes in the Senate regarding health care legislation as an example of his methodology of application… The entire process was corruptive, yet doctored with the pretence of statutorily compliance.

Ideological fuel will enable super-events; nevertheless, just as gravity cannot be denied so to the limit of ideology when confronted with the real and practical. In the interest of what is called “social justice”, Obama has loaded — and is presently loading — the mule train of private enterprise with too many passengers for the number of mules. Sensibility deduces that somewhere along the journey, eventually, some of the passengers will need to walk instead of ride.

Respective of the obvious denying of empirical soundness, Obama and his progressives insist on taxing and regulating the very enterprises that purchase, monitor, and manage the mules. The only possible result of such counter productiveness is less mules and more passengers. As a consequence, regardless of the progressives’ prediction that the Obama brand is “change that we can believe in”, his interpretive is in fact nothing less than the establishment of oligarchic-socialism that will not survive economic nor social reality. In order for Obama to implement his agenda, he must violate the spirit and meaningfulness of this nation’s constitution.

These contrarians of American values and traditions must be voted into obscurity. In the next election, as Rome delivered to Carthage in the Third Punic War, we conservatives must deliver in-kind to these progressives.