Authored by William Robert Barber

We have most recently have been presented with a bipartisan legislative deal: the Obama-McConnell compromise. The liberal progressives are furious, the Republican leadership proud, Jim DeMint disappointed, and Charles Krauthammer appreciative for the column fodder.

As if a protagonist starring in a role written, directed, and produced by his own hand, Obama was in belligerent form when televising his success with the opposition. Calling his compromise partners “hostage takers” while scurrilously denigrating his liberal progressive base by labeling them “purist” ideologues.

Obama and his confederates acknowledge that compromise does mean and fits in as a descriptive of a big fat concession. It is a conciliation with their bête noir; a transparent conceding of many, once fervently held, beliefs. Pelosi and company recognizing compromise implies that the two years of stimuli and regulatory revamping has been an economic failure.

The recent federal and state elections, as pointed out by the President, were a shellacking, a definitive rebuke by the American electorate for the Democratic Party. And as Obama once loudly pronounced, elections do have consequences. A few of those consequences (for the Obama accolades) are eating their own words and affirming the compromise. The fare for such an affirmation with the Republicans is agitation for/by the left wing of the Democratic Party; to paraphrase, Obama has in effect suggested to his 2012 reelection staff, to let them “left-wing purists” bark at the moon.

The compromise, as I interpret, does mean a continuance of the Bush tax abatement and for those who die between now and 2012, the government is entitled to less of your wealth or quite possibly none at all. Despite these perfectly sensible affirmations, the American people are spending more money and supporting the everlasting unemployment cash for not working program. The federal government is teaching its citizens to enjoy more dependence on the government. This new entitlement is simply and only enacted to buy votes for the 2012 election. Regretfully, this buying of votes applies to both parties.

Interestingly, Obama now believes this deal with the Republicans will positively stir the economy and create jobs… hmm, he’s a few billion dollars late with this revelation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Finally, we conservatives can act. We can express our frustrations, even anger at and for the legislative direction this Obama inspired congress has vectored. The House of Representatives is firmly in republican hands; the leftist leading senate is quivering under the onslaught by tea party provoked conservative candidates. Pelosi and her Democratic leadership is on her way out of power as the political left gives way to the right.

Obama, in partisan campaign mode, professes that voters should smite their enemies and support their friends — note how easy it is for our president to abandon his professional role as president of all the people for his passion of and for some of the people! Obama is a hypocrite. He is a deceitful manipulator. As a politician of the political left, he espouses a 1960’s post-Vietnam era contempt for America. Obama and his crew of liberal progressive socialists must go back to the universities, think-tanks, and laboratories of advance studies… they must get-the-hell out of political power!

As important as it is for this elective cycle to rid itself of these progressives, it is equally important for us to increase the pressure on the Republicans. They must govern from the center-right; they must reduce the size of government, lower marginal taxes, spread the tax base to include all Americans, and limit the federal providence and scope of governing. At the same time, conservatives must ready themselves for the elections of 2012. The White House and senate must be of a conservative-to-political-center ideology.

I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, and naturally I support Sharron Angle; she is going to win the seat and rid this nation of Harry. I had the opportunity to meet Sharron and her husband Ted over breakfast; they are fine people. Sharron will represent our conservative values; she will not compromise for the sake of some of what is needed.

Well, let’s grab our shield, sword, and lance, mount our steed, and VOTE…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The media has enunciated the obvious… Liberals and conservatives disagree. The insightful mainstream media goes on to declare that the depth and scope of their disagreement is profound. For emphasis, as pointed out by pundits of varying political persuasions, the competing ideologies’ incongruity prompts child-like maliciousness such as name-calling. This kind of behavior is frequently coupled with scurrilous accusations. Imagine that — so say the network medias — a discovery of the apparent is now newsworthy.

Since the Obama election the attacks by liberals and conservatives have intensified and the media are almost enthusiastically enthralled by the thrusts, jabs, and overhand rights, executed by both sides. Indeed, the behavior of some within the ranks of the elected has carved a divide of irreconcilable disrespect and the new legislative norm seems to be opinionated rancor, polarization, and stubborn disregard.

Over the last 25 years of electoral, the electorate has lost all faith in the premise that governments applies its power evenly; instead, a significant number of citizens think of their government as one of freewheeling incompetence and arrogance. Wherein politicians are tenured practitioners interested in fostering a curriculum of electability and politicking, solely for the purpose of retention. For the average American voter, the yesteryear presumption of moral integrity has been replaced with askance, frustration, and a complete displacement of the obedient fidelity.

There are multiple reasons for such a sea-change of opinion; here are a few: Governments are now enterprises, aggressively working to sell services and products to its constituency. Governing bodies are in the gambling business, inclusive of slot machines, lotto, and table games. With their team of well paid staff, they have devised the means and methods to extract fees, permits, taking licensing to new levels of distribution. It is now accepted practice to create measures to impose indirect taxation on all aspects of all transactions. Additionally, the federal government has distanced itself so far-and-away from the average Joe and Mary that it no longer acts in tempo with the community’s need. For capital’s politicians, Washington is a sublime place where those that know all things reside; these inhabitants have lost their regard of constituents’ interest, along with hearing and sight.

Withstanding the disengagement of Washington, for the political parties, compromise has run its course, no room for any give and take; the two factions are stubbornly steadfast in their beliefs. Ostensibly, respective of the reality of political gamesmanship, the liberals and conservatives are truly committed to their ideals and will not — even in the interest of the nation — abandon one more ideal in favor of a compromise.

When the liberal or conservative leadership is challenged by a material question, without hesitation, they reference their predetermined ideals or beliefs. Only after gaining access to these founding premises will they fashion a response. If the challenging question appeals to their emotion rather than to their logic, more than likely the effect will render a proportionate emotional reaction. If the material question is logic oriented, then the question either serves as a supporting tool to an inherent belief, or is discarded because it is unsupportive of a held belief.

In other words, beliefs and ideals do not die easily; indeed, to transpose an original thesis to an anti-thesis is an uphill expedition. Our ideals and beliefs are intrinsic to our persona. Thus, in order to change one’s intrinsic belief, words alone are not sufficient. Influences of empirical reality must be experienced over and over again to provoke a change in a founding ideal. Experiences that provoke charge are rare and exceptional. Therefore, one’s founding premises respective of valid evidence to the contrary is nearly intractable.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will never agree to conservative beliefs or ideals; indeed, their beliefs and ideals are the direct antithesis. For the media to expect anything other than such behavior in this volcanic emotionally charged political scenario is rather naive.

It has, for voters, come down to the simplest of questions. Where, within the scope of political variance, is your personal and national best interest served? If one believes the government is the answer/solution than the Democratic Party is your choice. If one believes in the conservative premise of limited governess, than one’s best bet is the Republican Party. After all, when the ambiguity of politics and governing is cleared away, it really comes down the simplest of terms.

Oh, vote conservative…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Office holding politicians, particularly the Democrats, cannot comprehend the prevailing message: The American people are angrily frustrated with the leadership, as well as followship of congress.  The citizenry are resentful of this ‘I know better’ elitist approach by the elected to the governing of the people. Additionally, disingenuousness, lies, distortions, and purposeful, politically motivated directives aimed to distort the truth for the sake of the moment also add wood to the fire of governmental distrust.

The people want the truth — the good, the bad, and the ugly truth. These are the wishes of the people. Instead, the Obama administration, Pelosi’s House majority, and Reid’s Senate majority insist on managing the Democrat-led government by presuming that the people are ignorant of what’s good for them; therefore, enlightenment of the masses is the obligation of every liberal progressive. After all, only through such practice can those who know and understand less be lead by those who understand so much more.

The very fact that political leadership for years — not just at the federal level — have managed to pay Paul with Henry’s money (the very definition of a Ponzi scheme); such behavior is a testimony of not simply pure unadulterated governmental mismanagement, but also the perfect example of what happens when constituents take their eye off the ball of political involvement.

The goal is not about trusting government; indeed, a sound responsive populous should never trust government. Nor is trust a factor in government transactions or affairs; this is particularly true as to the elected. Trust is not in the dictionary of political or governmental intercourse. However, mistrust is the guiding line of reason when auditing all aspects of governing.

No person living today, as with those persons of the past, has the constancy of either righteousness or truthfulness. Every person is blinded by one’s own predetermination of what is right or correct. Wisdom is only accurately measured in arrears. We are all guessers. The result of deductive logic is only as reliable as the veracity of the information imputed.

When legislation is rushed, it is only prudent to believe that mistakes will be made. So why rush legislation? Well, we all, despite our presumption of ignorance, know why legislation is rushed. Either because the congress is changing the name of an airport, or because the measure debated is politically significant and one party or the other would rather not stand the test of scrutiny.

I do believe that the American people have had their full of politics as usual. Certainly, congressional nonsense has risen to the top of the glass and has spilled over onto the floor. Enough of the useless political bickering (by the elected and the wannabe elected); the country is financially busted. It is time to spread the burden of sustaining the cost of governing, not emphasizing the spread of wealth. It is time to objectively, vigorously, lower the cost of governing at every level of government.

Remember, the author of “Utopia” lost his head…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Spurred on by a Bush bashing media, a less than convincing John McCain, and an economy unexpectedly turned upside down by an inexplicable financial-banking-insurance calamity, the electorate overwhelmingly voted in Obama and his democratic colleagues. The Democratic Party, with an arrogance that originates from the assurance of ultimate power, unilaterally attempted to turn this politically center-right nation into a leftist-socialist nation state. The leadership of Pelosi and Reid, pumped up by their newfound political potency, decided early in their tenure on the power-tactics of purposeful, excluding Republicans from the legislative process. They have practiced where required the bullying of their Blue Dog Democrats. For key members of congress, the leadership created a milieu of creative offerings; these offerings came in the form of persuasive enticements. Including cash rewards, the specific exemption for a certain state, as well as all unions of their heretofore pecuniary obligation — all of these extraordinary inducements are in play while leadership blatantly ignores the reasonable concerns of the nation’s constituents.

The hagiographic pronouncements of an enchanted-by-Obama media favored the presidential candidate throughout his campaign; indeed, there is observable evidence that this very same mainstream media (in contrast to the customary effort placed on unbiased reporting) has extended its favoritism into the first year of the Obama presidency .This liberal-progressive-socialist president and his brethren of the also elected have heretofore enjoyed, in general, a robust positive cheering of support from a media of like-same-political belief.

In addition to such cheerleading, often enough, the seemingly liberal personalities that host and manage the non-cable networks and its cable affiliates, willingly, often with not even a pretense of presenting a counter-argument, present programming that is an effectual endorsement of Democratic policies. This consistency of press patronage is best described as a Barrack-can-do-no-wrong viewpoint, rendering to the receiving public a politically charged prospective that catalyst a counter-prospective from a constituency of independent and conservative viewers, listeners, and readers. The media-reporting by liberal progressive sympathizers are in fact nothing less than a broadcast of appreciation for Obama’s policies. The liberal media has established a value-plus certification of the current administration’s actions. They have a platform designed more for ideological alliance then a media-platform designed for skeptical journalists.

Interestingly, despite media bias, the facts on the ground cannot be denied; such political consequences are clearly disturbing to the liberal progressives. Imagine loosing the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey and now having the super-blue state of Massachusetts vote red. Well, the unimaginable has happened — Scott Brown the Republican beat the liberal progressive Democrat in the bluest of blue states.

Now how can the liberal-bias spin this election as anything other than a rejection of Obama’s policies? In the finality of result, irrespective of the media’s own political prospective, the American people can think for themselves. The people have, in general, rejected the liberal progressive agenda; specifically the people have rejected the Obama Care legislation, the excessive federal spending, and legislation that adds to the largeness of government. This special election is a great victory for the conservative cause.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The Democratic Party of Obama has misread the last election and overreached its electoral mandate. It has put most of its eggs into the basket of healthcare and angered the right and the left, and flummoxed the independents. How a political party could infuriate so many in such a short period of time is a bit mysterious. Nevertheless, by the end of next year, one will be able to measure the Obama effect; the midterm elections will quantify and parse the effectiveness or ineptitude of the Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel policies.

It is simply amazing to me how devastating the hubris infection is to those in power; but I have never witnessed any group of politicians as arrogant as the Democratic leadership. Of course they do have an excellent role model to mimic; humility is not an apparent vestige of the president. As a consequence of their arrogance, Reid can outright lie to the American people; he can do so because he knows what’s best, and he actually feels justified in doing so.

In truth, Reid and Pelosi have lost their way; they are in the neither-land of blundering muddle-headedness. The healthcare legislation is no longer a matter of reforming healthcare or servicing the best interest of America; for the Democratic Party, this legislation is now a matter of exercising raw political power simply to render to Caesar a political victory. The Democrats have mounted a malicious and disingenuous attack on all non-supporters of the president’s agenda; they are working feverishly to unbridle themselves from the restraints of democratic procedure. These socialists are focused on implanting monopolistic institutions managed by special commissions, regulators, coupled with a behemoth bureaucracy and the entrenched ideal that the government does all the thinking.

This healthcare legislation is indecipherable, unpredictable, and full of contradictions and conundrums; this is the perfect exemplar of manipulating procedural methodology in the interest of divorcing the spirit of the law to suit the means to an end. Everyone knows the Congressional Budget Office scoring on this was founded on unattainable assumption and presumptions; the CBO detailed sections of deep concern within their report.  It seems to mean nothing to the claptrap of congressional officialdom; seemingly, the only true agenda is Obama politics of wealth redistribution over entrepreneurship.

Ideological animus is the fuel that runs the engine of liberal progressive coteries; their time is now and come hell or the loss of congressional seats, they have drunken the kool-aid and they are all in for a penny or a pound.

Well, they have done their deed and run, contrary to the wishes of the American people… that’s why we have elections.


Authored by William Robert Barber

The triumvirate of Obama/Pelosi/Reid represents the culmination of more than a century of governmental ingress into the affairs of its citizens. The triumvirate is no less than a continuance of governmental dominance over the once closely guarded liberties of the American citizen. I do believe their appearance of all-knowing, cloaked as liberal progressivism, now has evolved into a pervasive, do-it-the-way-I-insist, Pelosi/Reid legislative doctrinaire. They have forced through congress a Healthcare Bill despite the ever growing consequences; they have formed an alliance of the ideologically inspired all pledged to commit, if necessary, seppuku in order to advance the president’s socialistic agenda.

This liberal progressive movement espoused, in varying degrees of effectiveness by Democratic, as well as Republican administrations, was started in the beginning of the 1900’s. The concept that government had/has a larger role to play in society prevailed over those of traditional thoughts. Legislation enforced the initial progressive concept, government grew into predominance; effectually, the people traded their liberty for the notion that government could take better care of their primal needs than themselves.

I believe that the impetus, that engine the prevailing thought of liberal progressivism, is not just a falsity of premise; but instead, a premeditated act of fraudulent inducement of gigantic proportion. In other words, with willful forethought the elected, the special interest non-elected, the appointed, and those politicians (in office or out) that contrive for pecuniary gain have utilized all resources and measures, be it statutory compliant or extralegal, to maneuver — manipulate and otherwise induce — the American people to forfeit their individual liberty for the promise of what was either never delivered or delivered at a price or means of conveyance substantially different than promised.

Fascism, communism, and most of the variances of popular socialism all have the one commonality: The ideal of perfection; this ideal is founded on the supposition of a conceived intrinsic to socialistic doctrine; a covenant that takes on the guise of a sublime moral righteousness. This basis of such righteousness is identified by the following subtexts.

1. The rhetorical exploitation of reversed popular xenophobia, (delivered by a heroic orator) for example, the liberal progressives blame the unnamed ‘far-right people’ (formally known as conservatives) that are out to get the people of color. Scurrilously, and with pontificating manner, they express their outrage. For example, one such outrage is that racist or near-racist ‘feelings’ are still apart of America’s society; this is always coupled with the steadfast historical go-to pronouncement of economic-prevalent societal class disparity.
2. The commonality of ‘isms’ continue with the assertion (always without evidence) that certain persons (Dick Cheney) are declared persons of evil intent. This usually is followed up with a list of evil doers; such as traditional institutions (CIA), political parties, private and public traded entities (insurance companies, banks, and broker-dealers), and finally, contrary belief systems, both secular and religious.
3. There is or looms a crisis of such proportion that the nation state will suffer irreversible consequences if power normally held within the providence of congress, parliament, or bundestag is not ceded to the governing administration in the immediate.

The false hope of the ideal has repetitively, for thousands of years, prompted humankind into action. This all too human inclination to create, establish and embrace perfect has tantalized, intrigued and obsessed humanity. Most intensely, since the alchemist pledged the transmuting of baser metals into gold the false hope of establishing socio-political economic systems of ideal principles has always resulted with a governing system (benevolent or not) of autocratic-tyranny. The concept of achieving the ideal political and economic system, even though the ideal predicts consequences more subjective than objective, such ambiguity of message does not deter the proponents of these ‘isms’; seemingly, the receptive recipients of these messages-of-falsity prefer the subjective requiring no substantial evidence.

The concept of a perfect society governed by the most righteous and wise has experienced (even though they have always failed upon application) gratuitous appeal and almost immediate popular acceptance. Plato may have been the first liberal progressive; surely, ‘The Republic’ and its ideal philosopher-king concept of the perfect system rings, for a liberal progressive, as a plausible beginning of governing sensibility. The Obama believers now have sophisticated Plato’s original concept with the reality-application of Pelosi and Reid.

I call this ideal or idea of perfection a false hope. It is a falsity of premise because the ending is, with rare historical exception, the antitheses of their stated result.

In order to impose the ideal upon a society, individual liberty must and will subordinate to the supremacy of the state. History has proven time and time again that this ideal system of governing is a pseudo-choice, fabricated by the politically naïve in collaboration with the idealistically inclined who view the world more as an academic project than as a world of lethal conflicting interest. These propagators of liberal persuasion esteem a United Nations approach to worldly issues and concerns. The concept of a perfect government or the implementation of an ideal society requires every segment of human behavior to adhere and comply. Compliance and adherence require, as a natural consequence, draconian application. Such an application defeats the very idea of an ideal government or society.

History has documented the consequence of the first triumvirate that outcome destroyed even the semblance of a Roman Republic. The price of liberty is self-reliance, the spirit of essentialism, vigorous participation in one’s government, a steadfast mistrust of politicians, as well as government.

The ideals expounded by liberal progressives are a ruse, a falsity, a contextual of false hope; liberty is too precious to trade for government dominance and ingress…


Authored by William Robert Barber

The election results of Tuesday, November 3, 2009 were classic and pivotal. The Republican wins in Virginia and New Jersey did signal a vector to the political right. I believe the Democratics’ defeat indicates that citizens are wrestling with the “whole truth” of the entire Obama-Pelosi-Reid concept of governing. The results of the most recent national election is no longer an indicator of future electoral outcomes; “In the spirit of change we can believe in,” things have changed.

Voters are specifically apprehensive on three topics: The economy, the deficit, and the nation’s high percentage of unemployed. The Democratic response to all of these voter concerns is a 2,000 page document of ambiguous nonsense called Universal Healthcare. Then there is the dead-on-arrival-at-the-Senate Cap & Trade Bill; the one that passed the house of Pelosi with six Republican votes. This, followed up with Geithner’s treasury, seeking to enhance its power by undermining the means of entrepreneurs. All the while, the TARP and Obama stimulus folks are busy spending — or should I say, giving away — billions of dollars to either Democratic political interest or simply issuing these billions into the Obama department of the abyss. Now if this is not enough to angry voters, the Democratic majority is knee-deep in creating the largest deficit ever while Mr. Biden and company are inventing the number of jobs created or saved.

Respective of the results of the last election, one cannot lose sight of the political objective, the one continuum of vigilant regard, the never ending fight for conservative principles and values. Winning an election or not, it’s never over.

Prepare for 2010. This is an election of all-or-nothing consequence; the true test of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama’s governing acceptance. This election will be the definitive affirmation or discard of the liberal progressives’ brand of governing America.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Unless elephants learn to fly or by means other than the Democrats’ pre-recess playbook on ‘the selling of healthcare to the great unwashed’ which heretofore was vested in the now debunked hypothesis that Obama’s hero-protagonist popularity will put down the ‘blue-dogs.’ After all, controlling the conservative wing of the Democratic Party is a Pelosi ‘give-no-quarter’ requirement for the eventual success of her liberal-progressive legislation.

Well, not only were the conservatives within the Democratic Party not swayed to be put down, the draconian persuasion of the liberal-progressive wing back-fired in a manner that not even the great modern day Machiavellian Rahm Emanuel could envision. The great unwashed, with passive outrage, questioned the motivation, legislative integrity, and sensibility of not only a nationalized approach on healthcare; but took the occasion to question all of the federal government’s actions since, and the months leading up to Obama’s inaugural.

There is a prevailing point of view that President Obama’s version of nationalized healthcare will fade into the abyss of compromise. The compromised version will not have any of the material characteristics of the original; nevertheless, Obama will declare victory and move on to other legislative issues in his pursuit of implanting a pro-union expansive government, coupled with higher taxes, all the while, if applicable subordinating governing policy, agencies, departments, and the state school system into a pro-socialist populism that is designed to degenerate and substitute traditional American values for those of the secular progressive.

Of course, it’s not over until the fat lady sings, there is a chance that Obama will not compromise his single-payer vision; presently, the Democrats are huddling. The notables of the liberal progressives are licking their wounds after running right into the people’s double coverage and stubborn disregard. Their liberal progressive offensive might be staggering, but they are far from dead. They know full well that they desperately need a new down field play, or national healthcare will be benched until next season. I expect a surge; a new strategy will appear before September 15, and this time they know the extent of their opposition.

Interestingly, every time the great orator stands to explain healthcare, the proposal’s negatives rise even higher; the populous clearly disagrees with the Obama and Pelosi version of healthcare legislation. For passage, things look bleak, but then, the Democrats are resourceful. Surely they will package a new approach before attempting the political suicide of reconciliation.

If the Democrats insist on a single-payer nationalized approach to healthcare, such an adherence is another example of ideology triumphing over governing sensibility. In the last six months the tax-and-spend Democrats have, by a marathon, out-distanced the spend-what-we-don’t-have Republicans; clearly, the choice for the American voter is the worse of two incompetents. It is obvious, both political parties have strayed off the fairway and into the rough; not sure if they will ever find that little white ball of prudent governess. It seems very unlikely… just as elephants that can fly.