Authored by William Robert Barber

What, how, why, etc. is the truth? Exactly how in the world did Donald Trump win the presidency of the United States? No, no, it, that could not have happened; that cannot be the truth. I’ll force myself back to sleep assured that upon wakening the bad dream will void itself from my reality. Such is the mental state of liberal progressives striving to grasp the truth of the Realpolitik.

What these men and women, boys and girls of leftist persuasions, do not comprehend is actually stunning. They think of themselves as the intellectually disposed and as such, the sovereigns of cognitive thought and indisputable purpose. On balance they have assumed the omnipotent congruence of knowing what’s best for society in general and for their fellowmen in particular. Many teach in renowned colleges and universities; they graduated from law school, practiced a lifetime of politics, personally know all the right and honorable, fundraise amongst rock stars and celebrities, and possess Barbra Streisand’s personal cell phone number.

However, they are actually playground bullies: For years, the clique gathers every day to reinforce their dominance. They define racism, discrimination of all sorts, sexism, and what should not be said, thought, or reflected.  Amid the comfort of their élan these chosen segregate, they imply, they discern, and have metaphorically, repeatedly, forced palms out upon the chest of the common… well, the common have had enough of being bullied.

Essentially, these progressives lost the election because the liberal leftist policies of President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi cannot freely function in a republic and will never effectively operate in the real world. Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, disability claims and welfare amok, unlawful illegals’ roaming within protection zones, and the insanely egregious regulations put upon business small and large, is bullying on steroids. Throw in the aggression of North Korea, China, Russia, and that ridiculous non-treaty with Iran: the common have had enough.

Of course I do not want to educate the progressives…


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

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

Although sobriety has many intrinsic values, one of which being clarity of cognizance, when the subject is the present status of US governing and governess, alert awareness does have its negatives. For example, consider the diverse problems that face this nation state of ours: Three wars, two of which have lasted nearly a score of years. Interestingly, the preeminent analysis (by the best military minds) is that meaningful withdrawal from one of these wars will not occur until 2014 and withdrawal is subject to that nebulous dictum, “depending on the situation on the ground.” The issues and concerns of our nation are numerous: Immigration, ObamaCare, raising the debt ceiling, entitlements, the seemingly never reversing high unemployment, securing the border. Obviously, without neglecting those peoples that blatantly just want to kill Americans, I could go on and on… but I think my point has been made. The price one might pay for soberness could lead to frustration at a minimum, even depression. So to those that believe I am drinking too much vodka these days I say firstly that the vodka is Belvedere and secondly Newt Gingrich’s most recent behavior is that of a sober man. Oh and so was that Wiener fellow… he was sober when he initiated, over many years, such extraordinarily stupid behavior we are now so overly familiar with.

Logic dictates that once a problem is realized one must find and implement a solution. This is the rational of western thought. So in order to solve the problems defined in the latter paragraph I need to find a perpetrator, a rat, a dirty no good to harness the blame. After that, if I was a progressive or a social worker, I could spend some time empathizing with the rat’s issue, finding the rat, the appropriate taxpayer funded therapy, and finally blaming Bush for creating the policies that drove this individual to act out such heinous anti-social behavior. But since I am not a progressive I can, without hesitation or concerns over the violation of civil rights, move into direct prosecutorial mode. So I charge the blame onto political ideologies that are purposefully manifested into the potent delivery systems known as the Democratic and Republican parties. These political parties have willfully, in the interest of power, prestige, greed, and let’s not set aside the overwhelming power of stupid, perverted the constitution of 1789 solely for the perceived benefit of their party.

Well, I have enjoyed the swallow of several vodkas. I can now read the comings and goings of the political sway that lies within the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. I might even tolerate an English interpretative analysis of American wherewithal enclosed within the Economist. But most importantly, my Belvedere has dulled my sensitivity to the reality of what’s happening. I still have a tough time tolerating what is tolerated by so many. On the other hand, them, the others, and those out there in the great Hinterland, despite the efforts of forces counter to my interest, I am still putting one foot in front of the other….

Clearly, the default position to not winning the presidency is to dominate the senate… we must stop the liberal progressivism of President Obama. There is no Plan B.


Authored by William Robert Barber

So, according to Obama, if we increase the tax to those that earn $250,000 or more a year the deficit will notably abate. Of course Obama is not explicit in this presumption he only implies that taxing the rich “a little more” will notably abate the deficit. On-its-merits this Obama tax-a-little-more proposal is contentious and the conservatives do have a viable alternative. Just as one looks both ways when crossing the street, in the interest of prudence, contemplation is reasonable. Certainly, to endorse such a proposition, simply on the presumptive scaffold that taxing the rich will notably abate the deficit, requires more methodologically applied scrutiny than Obama’s campaign motivated rhetorical declarations.

Obama acts as if there was no viable counter-argument. Is it that the conservative’s emphasis on excessive government spending is actually on target?

I have noticed that whether the economy is good or bad, federal and state governments, waste taxpayer monies. With purposeful intent (motivated by trying to win office or to stay in office) politicians broaden old entitlements and at every opportunity creates new ones. The elected, mostly, Democratic pay explicit homage to unions; just take a peek at state pension obligations; I do believe that spending is the true basis of our deficit? Or is the Obama tax-the-rich proposal more an appeal to those who pay no federal income taxes to vote the status quo. Possibly this tax the rich scheme is nothing less than an offer to purchase votes in the upcoming 2012 election rather than a genuine proposal to decrease the deficit? Imagine a politician acting to better the odds of winning an election as a reason to act?

But then, one must appreciate that for Obama and his confederates within the progressive league, their real intention has nominal to do with deficit abatement and a great deal to do with servicing their agenda of social-justice. Indeed, once this tax-the-rich plan is implemented and thereafter (years later) analyzed for effectiveness even if the legislation had no effect on the deficit. The progressive ideal of fairness will have triumphed. And most importantly for Obama a progressive ideal has been in-placed.

The marketing of progressive persuasion is purposefully premised on invoking class-struggle onto the talking-points of electoral persuasion; the idea is to tie their political aspirations into an alignment with moral righteousness. After all (the Obama progressives deceptively preach) the poor and disenfranchised have no power; as Obama has pointed out they have no lobbyist to express their frustrations. It is therefore the obligation of Obama and his progressives to represent their interest. Now where have we heard this plea for the poor people before? Lenin comes to mind.

I do find it interesting that political leaders never advocate for the rich and the privileged although all of these leaders are rich and privileged. Inclusive to these pleas for those who have less every political leader throughout the 1900 hundreds up to the present have declared that the poor are poorer and the middle class is economically stymied. Naturally, what follows is the popular declaration that they will rectify this injustice as a matter of policy. This rectifying of injustice has been a politically enriched constant of Republican as well as Democratic leaders for a very long-time. Has no political party or political leader made progress in this endeavor to rectify this supposed clear injustice? Or is this rectifying of mostly economic injustice simply a popular campaign issue?

Obviously, withstanding whether this issue is real or imaginary, the politicians love the issue so much both political parties have used it. Of course Obama and his progressives have a particular infinity for the concept of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Without it they would have no social injustice to rectify. Hmm… that could drastically change their political crusade to emancipate the downtrodden from under the thumb of the rich and powerful.

Over the years I have heard the adage: We always get the government we deserve. I now believe this adage to be a truism. The forces of bonne chance aligned with the failures of President Bush’s administration, Secretary Paulson’s response to the financial crisis, the Bush endorsement to fund the car companies, as well as, their unions. And bingo President Obama was voted into power. The anemically pathetic campaign of the senator from Arizona also made a significant contribution to Obama’s victory.

Well, respective of the serendipitous outcome of the community organizer’s 2008 election, by November of 2011 the voters will truly understand the meaningfulness of what a vote for Obama means. If he wins this time, big government, ObamaCare, and most likely another liberal Supreme Court justice appointment is a definite. Conservatives will lose big time; we just cannot let that happen…


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

It seems Obama is turning conservative — or at the very, very, least he has abruptly right-faced so to appear within the political center. Obama abandons his leftist progressives in favor of a conservative agenda! Now that’s news… but has he actually done that? Hmm… could it be that the rascal is simply, in the interest of political survival, playing politics? Maybe, just possibly, our president wants to be reelected in 2012.

I think that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is likely President Obama is that duck. Obviously the president has decided that tactics of guile, deceit, and deviousness is a much better alternative than being a one-term president. But of course, President Obama’s most recent ‘spin’ is not unusual. In fact, Obama’s cunning realignment of political opinion, even ideological principles, is common amongst the political class. The political class does not require the inducement or prompt of empirical evidence to flush a heretofore closely held belief. For politicians, including our President Obama, the goal is the retention of power and prestige, the means to it is discretionary and quite fluid.

I assume the question that remains to be answered is whether or not Obama will be successful in his political movement to the middle. Surely, after the last election he knows that displaying his political truthfulness to the electorate will not insure his election. Obama’s strategy of excessive taxation so to support permissive lending and imprudent spending is simply a loser policy. So is bashing business. Taking from those who have more, via government coerciveness, so to entitle those who have less, (despite the ruinous effects of progressives’ champions: Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR and Obama) is not an American ideal nor tenets of a democratic republic.

The exemplar of government intervention regardless of extraordinary resistance of the people is ObamaCare. This legislation was forced upon the people by legislative trickery, backroom deal making, and despicable political rankling. Republicans have pledged that this legislation in its present form will not stand.

So I gather our president will try to meander through the Republican House of Representatives by feigning middle-of-the-road governess and in so doing draw independent voters away from the conservative camp to his.

These next few months will be riddled with promises, promises, mingled in with some bull, a few distortions, lots of half-truths, and several timely placed lies.