14 08 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

It is palpable that the great majority of the populous reads, writes, and comprehends voluminous quantities of information. After all, compared to yesteryear, today’s mediums of dissemination are diverse in source and variable in means. So why the abrupt discrepant of meaningfulness? How can the content of an identical issue result in dissimilar interpretation?

Predetermination! A belief does not require facts, the truth of the matter, or the consideration of evidence to the contrary. A belief only requires the stubborn determination of adherence. All of us homo sapiens, seemingly, secure emotional comfort from our underlying beliefs.

Challenging our tight-fist predetermination with conflicting information respective of the empirical veracity of evidence does not automate a change of one’s predetermination. As a consequence, persuasive discourse, void of deductive logic, regresses into the counter-intuitive dilemma of irrational persistence.

The reasoning of persuasion is to initiate consensus. The presumption of achieving consensus is that such an achievement prompts a willingness to change an opinion or edit a particular predetermination… Well, not necessarily.

Words seldom change opinions or predetermination; however, they do validate existing beliefs. It is events, particularly in our hyper-technological media environment that action enables. Words trail the event. Subsequently, the first words after the event, even if inaccurate, are the most powerful — because these words expose the tone, intent, and more often than not create the ongoing basis of understanding. In this hyper-partisan political environment, like sirens to Ulysses, the tone and intent beckon one to a particular, usually ideological, perspective.  

Facts are subject to analysis, clarification, and explanation, hence versions. Truth is elusive, tenuous, and often indefinable. Nonetheless, one needs to have core beliefs. When speaking of political beliefs, one believes in a limited government or not. In, at all risks therein, individual liberty and freedom — or not. The rule of law, a nation of laws or men, the literal interpretation of the constitution or a continuum of court opinions that counter the meaningfulness of the founders.

Well, I’ve had my say, so now we can all retire to our respective corners…



3 08 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

The assumptive: Journalists/reporters forthrightly inform the public of a post or current account of the newsworthy happening, aftermath, or outcome. Possibly, but not necessarily so, the factoid said to the imprudent and the imprudent agreed. Adding, the factual is not relevant. Relevant, the imprudent accentuated –- are eyeballs trained on our network or newsprint. 

The application of the six W’s: who, why, when, where, what, and how. However, in today’s highly competitive media business, the means has no necessitated relevance to the facts. The guideline for success in the business of news reporting is malleability. Never let the facts abate the story’s sizzle.  Additives, such as stretching liner aspects of the story with hyperbolic insinuations or the theatrics of journalists/reporters demonstrating a clairvoyant forte, and/or media folks experimenting with mindreading psychoanalysis is the norm.

The antecedent paragraph has particular applicability to those espousing a political/ideological perspective. There is no better exhibition of the political/ideological differing as for the daily press conference presided by Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The daily press conference is an unscripted highly rated reality show. The questions posed by attendees are 90 % inane — or wholly immaterial. The show’s producer should fire the show’s writers; and the director ought to focus particular attention on the animatronics of the actors posing as journalists.

But of course the press conference is a theatrical audition, a forum wherein questioners seek to provoke a newsworthy response; a place where the prize is “gotcha” questions. Embarrassing Sarah, as the cameras zoom in for the close-up, is a score for the reporter.

Seemingly, the mainstay du jour of the politically motivated liberal progressive is to disallow, limit, usurp, and disrupt. The “du jour” of the socialist activist is to implement their agenda. If the means of such implementation include financially supporting ANTIFA, subverting statutory laws, as well as defiling the laws of the land, the socialist is undeterred.

The resolve of the socialist activists in their persistence of Machiavellian principles is comparable to the tenacity of Mao and Stalin.

But the media, enthralled with Trump, his family, and their indict Trump agenda considers the ANTIFA fanatics “free speech” proponents and Trump their Bête noire.

Regarding the media’s obvious liberal progressive political/ideological bias and malleability of the facts, I consider such an irreconcilable constant. The truth of the matter wrestles with the prejudice of the observer and interpreter. The facts of the matter are a moving target, easing its way around empirical definition to the relativity of contingencies. This quandary has the ancient roots of stoics and sophists.  

Withstanding my objections to the meaningfulness of liberalism, progressivism, and socialism, I do believe their participation in the political discussion is imperative. So those of us that disagree, forbearance is a critical behavioral trait; besides, comparative analysis is logical and deductive.



19 07 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

Factually, politically driven ideological precepts, circulated with resolute intent, do influence the context of every newsbroadcast. Ideological inclinations have been a mainstay in the reporting of “the news” since the invention of writing. To believe that “the news” is anything other than ideologically inclined is an unintelligible discernment of the palpable. However, the broadcast of “the news” does not necessitate the reader or listener to believe that the report is “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Because of the intense and highly competitive means of broadcasting in the USA one can measure and compare one news broadcast alongside another. Nonetheless, information is a fungible commodity; as such, information is subject to an elusive and often subjective interpretive.

Therein is the recipients objective: To measure and compare all available information so to deduce newsworthy facts from the novelistically contrived.

Intrinsically, Westerners presume the empirical deductive that sense and logic are universally accepted predicates. This presumption is the basis of thoughtful consideration. Contrariwise, the reality of the result does not, in the majority, affirm the effectual meaningfulness of sense and logic. That’s because the world is not sensible, logical, nor morally considerate. The world is a multidimensional assortment of self-serving perspectives; these perspectives are prompted to action by varied often counter-intuitive trajectories, each seeking the fulfillment of one’s perspective.

If accepted as viable — Information initiates action…

An unmitigated governing fact: The United States is either the most powerful nation on earth or a subordinate of the most powerful. This statement is a unapologetic fact. Reinforcing the a priori of my pronouncements: the real-world adversarial conditions of the present and the many yesterdays are nothing less than a truism of episodic violence. There is no escape from the violent aggressive ethos of human behavior. Peace is and will remain a lofty hypothetical.

Despite the source of differing information, the voluminous inherent of common information belay one’s ability to comprehensively grasp its meaningfulness. Analysis of what is factual remains daunting, even impossible. Therefore, we all retire to our ideological fundamentals. Our predetermination vectors us to media resources that affirm and reaffirm established beliefs.

When contrary to an accepted belief is challenged by empirical evidence proving otherwise. Accepting the truth as a priority subjects one to difficult intellectual challenges. One holds tightly to established beliefs; as a consequence, acceptance of new  evidence does not necessitate the immediate change of one’s original premise.

Nonetheless, in the interest of enhancing the virtues of contrarianism, the attainment of cognizant awareness, and the principle of fair-mindedness, respective of one’s political philosophy one must accept evidence to the contrary of established beliefs, as well as, the diversity of opinions as a cornerstone of honest self-actualization. 

But since a significant percentage of citizens are Mugwumps — a new word that appeared to me today. The derivative is Algonquian, meaning an independent person not interested or vested in learning or participating in a political party. The minority dictates the political future of our nation.  The few control the veracity of our republic. Mugwumps beware! Standing on the wayside of one’s citizenry obligations will incapacitate the nation’s constitutional mandate and erode the nation’s democratic principles.


4 07 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

The European Union is on the threshold of a utilitarian discovery, one that in every meaningful circumstance challenges heretofore (EU) accepted truths. The overwhelming horde of migrants illegally entering Europe has clear-eyed the concepts of “open borders,” pluralistic veracity, and the projection of integrated social harmony as (for the most part) unworkable theories.  

The ideals that constitute Chancellor Merkel’s self-imposed interpretive of Germany’s obligation to import and service the needs of one-million unvetted undocumented refugees has exposed Merkel as a committed ideologue.

In the interest of rushing to implement an untested (EU) ideal,  Angela circumvented the rigors of domestic political persuasion and unilaterally initiated an immigration policy that rattled the tranquility of the homeland.

The Chancellor thoughtlessly negated the effects of the cultural/religious indifference between a Christian/secular social order and the Islamic/cultural norms of a Muslim influx. The result was mayhem which included physical assaults, rapes, and a monetary burden on the German people.

Interestingly, (EU) leadership hypocritically espouses “open borders” as a (EU) moral and statutory principle while scurrilously reproaching and admonishing anti-immigrant policy believers as anti-democratic right-wing nativist seeking to create mass internment camps. All the while (EU) leadership diligently, with a noticeable degree of incompetence, explores solutions that the so-called right-wing nativist such as Viktor Orban of Hungary proposes.

Democratically principled nations are at war; it is waged overtly, by proxy, and covertly. The counter-party of this war are Islamic religious zealots seeking to impose their tenets of fundamentalism where ever  possible. These fanatical Islamist are intent on terrifying Christians as well as those not Islamic enough Muslims into their brand of fanatical compliance — or die.

In this war there are no rules of engagement. Geneva Conference does not apply. Killing innocent peoples is the norm. The Islamic terrorist is not concerned with the (EU’s) righteous passion for refugees. Its only interest is to destroy Westerners, their values and ideals. For the Islamic fanatics “open-borders” is an opportunity for offensive mayhem.

It is time for Angela and the (EU) to reconsider their original pronouncements. The present circumstances require an invigoration of border security. The acceptance of today’s empirical reality demands a mandate wherein illegal migration ends. A nation’s culture is integral to the acceptance of law and order; such is an intrinsic prerequisite to domestic normalcy.


23 06 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber 

Tolerance is an antecedent analogous to an open mind. Liberal progressives favor meaningless animated hysteria they have closed their mind. As a result, the necessary platform required for debate and dialogue between conservatives and liberals is nonexistent.

The alternative to nonexistent dialogue (as presently exampled by progressive media) is to denigrate, vilify, and malign: Conservatives in General-President Trump-Inexact. The evolving of disparaging rhetoric to physical violence is, as historically evidenced, less than a stone’s throw away.

When evaluating the motivational theses of progressive angst, descriptive words such as ‘coherent’, ‘lucid’, ‘judicious’, and ‘sensible’ are missing; in their place are incoherent leitmotifs of dissatisfaction that may start with a particular grievance but end in a Trump diatribe.

Because facts do not serve their objective and goal, the political left insists on ad hominem references, scurrilous accusations, rowdy behavior, perplex misperception, violence, and eruptive chaos as their weaponry. This particular stratagem is as old as the emergence of hunter-gathers into agrarian city dwellers.

America’s progressive left replicates the street tactics and rhetorical ploys of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Lenin and Trotsky’s objectives and goals provide the political philosophy that snugly fits into Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals narrative.

In finality, the upcoming midterm elections are critical indicators of the liberal progressive Democrats and their positive appeal to the majority of Americans; if the Republican majority forfeits to their political counter-party, obvious disaster; however, if the Republicans do not gain representation in Congress, resolution to the political upheaval will continue.


11 06 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

The basis used to evaluate and measure the all too often politically exploited term “American values” are misconstrued and conflated by a strong-willed fairytale that emphasizes the good and positive of American history while avoiding or abating the evil and negative.  Nonetheless, I do believe that American culture and Americans are, comparatively, unique and exceptional with an ethically rooted belief in individualism, liberty, and self-determination. I also believe that the government of America and Americans — as with all sapiens — are at a minimum xenophobic, bigoted, self-serving, disposed to tribalism, and susceptible to varying degrees of behavioral dysfunction.

What stymies the onslaught and effect of the ever-hovering chaos from consuming peacefulness is the rule of law, just like it is the rule of law that prompts citizens to “go” on green and “stop” on red. The rule of law is paramount to the integrity of America; when not applied blindly and evenly, America “the land of the free and home of the brave,” grievously suffers.

Interestingly, impropriety amongst the elected and appointed seemingly, as if an intrinsic effective, require a high IQ person, platformed by a brand name education — a preponderance of arrogance that effectuates an unbridled hubris. Once again, the powerful few within the DOJ and FBI construed and manipulated what is ostensibly lawful to service an ideologically inspired agenda. Their defense for such covert illicitness I  assume will be that they plotted and executed these transgressions in the interest of the common good.

Congress, designed for ineffectiveness, promptly responds to the needs of its constituents only when provoked; Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are excellent samples of a prompt response. An effective Congress must respectively debate sufferings and policy issues. However, the enjoining of divergent interest each respecting the other perspective is as preposterous as proposing peace as a policy goal. The government of the United States is too enormous to govern effectively; furthermore, while legislators may write the laws, it is the bureaucrats that interpret and enforce them; as recently proven, Congress cannot oversee its departments.

Monitoring the elected is tough enough. To oversee the unelected bureaucrats that manage the governing of America is damn near impossible: Similar to weeds that spring up between the cracks of cemented sidewalks, a governing bureaucracy is an ever-growing phenomenon. Going to the moon and the exploration of space, eradicating cancer, eliminating poverty, or traversing the ocean bottom all is simple and doable — but slowing the growth of a government bureaucracy: impossible. 


23 03 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

Challenged by affairs domestic and international, a significant number of Americans are befuddled and disquiet. Seemingly, democratic leadership and their allies in the media cannot discern the reality of the present nor accurately assess current events without the impute of partisan bias. When presented with issues of profound concern, political leadership prefers procrastination and analytical meandering rather than stating a definitive position.  After all, stating a definitive position is a measurable act… And what politician yearns to be measured?

What better illustration of procrastination and analytical meandering than the wrongheaded diplomatic debacle of the nation’s failed dealings with North Korea? However, since WWII, N. Korea is just one of the many calamitous failings of American diplomacy.

Von Clausewitz, the Prussian general and military theorist, stated that war is the natural extension of diplomacy. There is a symbiosis; a live fire relationship between diplomacy and war. There have been many proxy wars between the United States and its resolute enemies. Like bullies in the school playground, the counterparts push and shove. Nonetheless, despite the continuous loss of life and treasure, the meaningless perpetuation of violent conflict, victory is an unacceptable goal.

Our nation’s display (over the last fifty years) of noxious ignorance, imprudent naïveté, and the arrogant hubris of our politicians’ sense of misplaced moral righteousness has destroyed any statutory meaningfulness of immigration laws. When coupled with the palpable illegalities of “sanctuary cities,” the ad hoc discretionary enforcement of laws, the politicizing of federal institutions and their employees, one deduces pending chaos.

Progressive ideologues such as former President Obama are the perfect exemplar of a leader besieged by excessive intellectual contemplation. Striving to mitigate risk even at the cost of principle limited American influence. Obama’s inaction upon the invasion of Iraq by ISIS forces blatantly denigrated American prestige, sense of reliability, and cost thousands of innocent lives.

Eisenhower’s decision not to press for victory during the Korean War, Kennedy’s compromise in Cuba,  Nixon’s unwillingness to invade North Vietnam, and Bush’s analytical ineptness has cost this nation thousands of American lives and trillions of taxpayer dollars while emitting an impression of weakness, hesitation, and insecurity.

Withstanding the current cost of lives, not initiating a first strike on North Korea today will cost the United States many times more in the future. North Korea will never give up their nuclear weaponry… Settle the issue now: eliminate their existence.