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

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.


Authored by William Robert Barber

In the days of old, when wooden ships cleaved the brine and canvas sails captured the wind, a time when warriors, ruled by marital kings, crossed the moat, breached the safety of castle walls and with cold steel in hand challenged the dark unknown, the law rested with the mighty and the lawless were the usurpers. That is until usurpers became the mighty.

The presumption of that age was that the all powerful minority knew better than the common; and besides, most importantly it was understood that the minority would protect the majority against dragons known, unknown, or invented. Though the minority was ignorant, bane, and unintelligent, such assessment mattered little because the majority was even more so. Thus, the little less than totally ignorant ran roughshod over the totally ignorant. The guiding theory was that the majority of the people would submit their being to their corporal lord, their soul to God, and their labor to their betters.

During the Age of Enlightenment, technology stirred alternatives to the heretofore agrarian lifestyle that was solely supported on the rule of serfdom. The long-bow at Agincourt proved the equality of archer to knight; skilled labor built glorious artful edifices and merchants established a lucrative global trade. The real laggards in the abatement of ignorance in favor of intellectual illumination were leaders of kingdoms and the captains of religion.

Their means of suppressing inquisitive intellect was very simple: Script the law of the land and the bible in Latin. Of course these oppressors of reasonableness and sensibility, at the penalty of fire, also forbade the translation of Latin into English.

Today the majority still submits to the minority — but under certain terms and conditions. Instead of the ignorant being lead by the little less than ignorant, we have the common being confronted by the omnipotent intermediary of government. The government of the United States has over the last hundred years blossomed into a Byzantine bureaucracy of departments, agencies, and committees that are entrenched in cities, counties, districts, and state and federal groupings of political authority. This growth of government with all of its ambiguities, complications, and contradictory complexions was not and is not a result of necessity but a premeditated defense by the entrenched forces of this country’s liberal progressive plutocracy. It is these entrenched forces that act against the overtly definitive covenants intrinsic to this nation’s constitution.

These constitutional covenants were and are designed to limit the power of the central government. Such limitation is encapsulated within the citizens’ persistent covet for liberty and freedom.

The powerful no longer insert Latin to restrict interpretive understanding but instead the enigma of legalese; they purposefully elevate the non elected regulators to the status of statutory implementer of lawfulness. They write laws and vote on laws not even read because the purpose of the laws is to suppress liberty and individual freedom, supposedly in favor of the collective interest of the whole. The determination of what is in the interest of the many is proclaimed by a committee of the few.

Obama and his plutocrats must be stopped…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democrats are desperately trying to put the evidentiary round into the politically advantageous square. For these liberal progressives, their much touted theoretical and conceptive principles of “change we can believe in” have, with a deliberately sounding smack, run into the tactical reality of actual governing.

Withstanding the excessive taxpayer borrowing prompted and enacted by the Bush government, this nation, under the Obama government, is scheduled to spend a trillion and half more than it receives. This Obama deficit however is traversing through the highways and byways of an economy with high unemployment and low tax harvesting. The alternative to the Obama plan of purposeful excessive spending as an economic cure is to cut spending, lower taxes, extend the Bush tax cut, eliminate regulatory overreach, and enable small business growth. Of course that conservative economic alternative to the Obama economic scheme is an ideological atheism to the liberal progressives. Their response to such a proposal would be that even if such an alternative worked, it should not be implemented because it is fundamentally unfair. They would elaborate that the unfairness rests with working families and union members, and benefit the rich over the poor — naturally in their world of the theoretical and conceptive, the rhetorical claim of unfairness is sufficient proof, thereby eliminating the time consuming madness of further investigative debate.

This great rich nation of ours creates a revenue cause for over a trillion dollars in taxes, fees, penalties, and other etcetera contrivances; nevertheless, congress whether flying the red or blue flag, continues to overspend. Clearly, congress has developed an uncontrollable spending habit and intervention by the American people is required.

Our government representatives cannot agree on a solution for Medicare and Social Security but they did vote in another entitlement with ObamaCare. Does any of that make sense at all? It isn’t as if the current and projected federal deficit is the only financial negative facing this country. All of the federal entitlement programs are broke or going broke. Federal, state, and private pensions are seriously underfunded. Then of course, there is all that oil in the Gulf.

The thesis of big government is under fire because it is not able to bridge the distance from promise to result. The promise, as more and more Americans comprehend, was no more than a ruse to retain or attain elected office. The problems have added up and the American people will not be hustled by any emptier campaign promises.

Now I am really going to stretch one’s imagination and suggest that the problem is 80% solved by passing a constitutional amendment for term limits. No more than two terms in any one office is the limit.

Within the grand scheme of political history, the many is lead by the few. The few, with even fewer exceptions, fight to remain in office. For serving politicians to join the ranks of the many after the taste, feel, and smell of power is (for the politicians) worse than going from first class to coach. The prestige of being in power is so intoxicating that relinquishing its ambiance of gravitas for the wholly and often boring mundane, reeks of distasteful acceptability.

Therefore, the career politician must be forced out of power; he or she will never withdraw on his or her own volition. The case for term limits if solely determined as an anti-corruption measure is sensible. Nevertheless, no matter how effectual the elected, it is an imperative of an honestly managed government to regularly turn over its elected. Time in office only engenders the means, negatively influences the legislative culture, and affords the opportunity for institutional corruption.

Of course, I wish we could devise a distribution system to eliminate global hunger…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Looks like the Obama inner circle of all powerful insiders havs slipped, stumbled, and fallen into a puddle of Chicago-style political muck. This time, the smartest of the smart have created a wholesomely negative issue, solely on their daft contrivance. Surely, given a few more days, the chief of staff, a sitting governor, a former president, and the presidential press secretary can huddle and blame this on Bush.

In spite of all the editorial dancing by enterprising novelist within and outside of the administration, the truth has raised its head above the chaos of politicking — and is biting into the Obama brand. Despite the solidly delivered Obama election pledge of a transparent above the political fray government, politics as usual have identified themselves within the Obama camp. Once again a principal politician feigned hopefulness when in pre-election mode — but delivered politics as usual in practice.

A citizen might call this an excellent example of fraudulent inducement. But then of course the media, the president’s lawyer, notable politicians, an array of appointed and once appointed would discount the charge of fraudulent inducement as “simply politics as usual”.

Of course the president has been under pressure. The North Koreans’ have decided to redefine their sea borders and in order to establish this new sector of sovereignty, their leadership decided to sink a South Korean vessel, killing 46 people. Naturally, Secretary Clinton voiced a complaint. She clearly was upset with the North; and as a consequence she articulated a no-nonsense response to Kim Jong Il’s aggression, which was globally broadcast and convincingly implied the cold sternness of Obama disappointment in the North Korean hostile action. This state department declaration was coupled to the notion that this act of violence could not go unattended. Sarcastically, that of course sent shivers down the spine of the martially aggressive North Koreans and certainly satisfied the concerns of the 46 South Korean families who had just lost loved-ones. This half-hearted, cowardly approach to a clear military provocation demonstrated the level of US resolve for the Chinese and focused the Japanese on the real-time risk of relying on America’s willingness to protect Japan.

For all intensive purposes, Iran will soon add the atomic bomb to its arsenal of weapons. The attaining of this weaponry will validate Iran within the geo-political sector. It will establish Iran as the premier terrorist support nation and bond Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Lebanon into the Syria-Iran axis. As a collateral benefit to the madness of Iranian foreign policy, a policy that fits in perfectly with the Obama-Clinton ineptness and mind boggling disregard of the palpable, Obama offers weak disputatious of how the world should be. The discernable of what is offered amongst the midst of international diplomacy is the Obama policy of demonstrating American weakness at every opportunity. How many times does this nation state turn the other check and say (per TelePrompTer) “do it to me again, please”? This Obama-Clinton doctrine isolates Israel even more, negating even the fanciness of peacefulness.

But then, quite possibly, I might be too harsh. The president or ‘the enlightened one’ demands only one particular: that all nations, regardless of their varied and splintered Socio-religious-economic-political variables, simply inhale his elixir of Obama persuasion. If only these parts and pieces would adhere to the truth… the light and the way of Obama belief that the world will be nuclear free, Palestinians will gleefully enjoin with Israelites, Korea will unite, poverty will be stricken by the cheerfully given sharing of wealth, green energy will replace fossil, and Mexicans will stay in Mexico.

Offering the endorsement of a far flung network of liberal progressive intelligentsia, Obama is mystified as to the why-fore of any hesitation by his counter parties. After all, the UN stands at the ready — and according to Obama this is the forum for multilateral agreement. Additionally, he, the leader of the Western alliance, has personally pledged the tangible fact that George W is no longer president; plus he has assured the world that the US is no longer the cowboy unilateralist. Noticeably, the Russian and Chinese love the Obama Doctrine of “let’s all get along” by leading his department of state by the noose, whiles every now and then kicking him in his rear.

Well, there are these midterm elections…


Authored by William Robert Barber

What has happened to our government? Is it that congress, pushed, pulled, and prodded by Liberal Progressives over the last hundred or so years, has successfully changed the ethos of American thought? Was the impact of FDR’s successful socialistic agenda far greater than realized? Has Jimmy Carter’s naiveté particularly on foreign policy been effectuating such fearfulness within this nation state that we refuse to accept our reality? And because of our inability to address Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah with military force, we pick a silly fight with Israel? Or is it that Americans have come to realize that America would be — and indeed is — a better place because the enlightened progressives have reshaped and remolded American society? That this new era of Americans has finally submitted to ‘the way of Obama’ and the progressives’ political ideal?

The liberal progressives of today have persistently proffered an America where a communalist definitive of social justice is the acceptance. The progressives believe public funded entitlements are an obligatory normative. They also enthusiastically endorse a tax policy that in practice, for those paying into it, is discriminative and egregious. A tax policy that in its finality, if successful, penalizes the risk takers for the privilege of taking the risk; and if the risk taker loses its cash, tough… Unless the entity in question is a “too big to fail” or government enterprise such as Fannie or Freddie. Progressives espouse the redistribution of wealth, coupled with a perverse interpretive of newly founded individual rights, such as healthcare, as an ipso facto.

The leadership of the liberal progressives has tried to eliminate existentialism as the philosophical raison d’être of American distinction. They want Americans to submit to a socialistically inclined republic wherein the wise does all the thinking for the less than wisest. In their sense of perfect, the common man’s fate is rendered to the providence of government; a government that offers life’s essentials to all, regardless of status or intelligence quotient. In other words, working is no longer required.

A progressive’s utopia is a land whose population is equal in all material measurement. A land of uncanny understanding, civil tolerance, functional equality; a land where such is within one’s grasp if only one would submit to the promise and providence of government sagacious. The American people (or at least a significant number of Americans) actually believe it is proper, even preferred, to take money fairly earned by one — utilizing the government as the intermediary — and give that money to another. The other is not required to be an American citizen. The other can be a country, a worthy or not so worthy cause. This give-away of taxpayers’ dollars can also take the form of arms, food, drugs, the International Monetary Funds, the United Nations, or even a variant of services such as abortions — all supported by US currency.

As expected, for the life of me, I do not understand the thinking of these liberal progressives; it is beyond my cognitive to submit to their promise of something or another — well, it is either a something or it is another. I do not understand the Obama-Holder-Pelosi-Reid message, other than it is utter nonsense.

As I have conservative, I have liberal-progressive associates; some of my conservative acquaintances think of me as too conservative and certainly all of my liberal-progressive comrades think of me as outlandishly right wing… I do not believe I could ever generate enough consensus to fill anything larger than a phone booth; nevertheless, I prod along. I do so by putting one foot in front of the other, presumably just as those who think quite differently; admittedly however, I am sometimes a bit more frustrated than at other times over the present Obama governing process. But then I still have November to reconcile my current angst with the new leaning conservative congress.