Authored by William Robert Barber

The cost for this nation’s sovereignty and surety of domestic peacefulness is the expenditure of American blood and treasure. Any other consideration is dangerously naïve. Peace as defined in fact, and practice is an imaginative illusion. No defense impedes a determined offensive; to think otherwise would be the Obama Doctrine of containment. Wherein, instead of maintaining a lethal military and the determination to implement, the arrows in the president’s quiver are understanding, good faith, humility, and most importantly a consolatory regard for the positions of one’s enemy.

When U.S. leadership declares an ‘or if’ statement (i.e. “red line” absolutes in Syria) and then does not act decisively to initiate the ‘or if’ consequence, our enemies interpret such as not simply a sign of weakness but a signal that the Unites States are ceding the region, the particular situation, and the prevailing result to its counter-party.

This secession of authority by the United States, specifically the unwillingness to tangibly act respective of our overwhelming martial dominance has happened over and over again. For instance: This nation expended blood and treasure in WWI and then walked away from engaging with our allies in and for an equitable settlement of vital concerns. In WWII the U.S. naïvely entrusted Stalin’s communist Russia. General Eisenhower opened Berlin and Eastern Europe to Russian occupation per the Yalta Agreement. With UN authority but mostly U.S. blood and treasure we walked away from a divided Korea resulting in a nuclear armed gangster nation. President Kennedy did not invade Cuba; indeed, he promised the United States would never invade. This nation committed its armed forces in Vietnam but would not invade the North so to ultimately destroy all organized resistance. President Reagan put U.S. Marines into Lebanon as a show of force but would not issue ammunition to individual marines. He foolishly believed that a show of force was the same as military force. Hundreds of Marines were killed and wounded and instead of punishing the perpetrator he, like President Clinton in Africa, withdrew back across to the safety of the Atlantic.

Putin’s Russia has captured vast zones of Ukrainian territory by armed invasion and Obama’s America contemplates the possibility of increased sanctions. NATO has been castrated whiles the neighborhood seeks appeasement and conciliatory diplomacy. Fear and anxiety have replaced hopefulness because the United States have repeatedly announced what it will not do — while emphasizing what it will not do is impair Putin’s territorial ambitions by military force.

The expenditure of blood and treasure is the fare of and for domestic peacefulness. If this nation is unwilling to pay the fare then sovereignty is just a matter of time.

President Obama is lost. He vacillates about in a desperate struggle to induce the contrivance of a progressive ideology into an apathetic world that submits and reconciles only to power. Because such is the context and meaningfulness of his political being the president is a danger to U.S. interest. His cabinet, his advisors, his fellow democrats had better step in and correct their leader’s process of thoughtfulness before this nation suffers another blow to the homeland and to our worldwide prestige. China is watching…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Amongst billions of other Homo sapiens vying for their unequal share of available resources America and its people cannot grasp the day-to-day reality of living on this spinning sphere. Despite reams of historical as well as present day, media revealed substantiation Americans would rather believe its lying eyes then the palpable and factual.

Will America ever accept problematic behavioral dysfunction as a constant of the human condition? The transactional events today include armed and dangerous rival governments, some with WMD deliverables. Organized and disorganized crime is a lethal threat to the stability of world-wide lawfulness. A plethora of terrorist networks, gangs, and wannabe’s with murderous intentions threaten to decimate enlightened society; as if retrograded back into the “Dark Ages” the world is violently chaotic. But and despite all evidence to the contrary America’s leadership seems satisfied with third-party deliberation, the anecdotal prattle of UN ineffectiveness, and submission to Russian and Chinese hegemonic ambitions.

This nation’s commander in chief is in a mesmerizing state contemplating not a holistic military/diplomatic response to the violent aggression of Jihadist but instead striving to develop and enact a policy of doing nothing at all…or should I correct myself and say he is contemplating extending his strategy of too little-way too late.

I am repeatedly told that the American people are war weary, tired, and frustrated with its heretofore experience in the Middle East. This rather futile expression of defeatism is buttress by the fanciful expectation that some other nation or nations should lead and bear the financial burden. This discussion is going on while our armed forces are bombing the enemy and reinforcing its havens of war making capability. Once again the policy makers are much-more comfortable believing their lying eyes than the facts that reality transparently provides.

Here’s some reality, our Jihadist enemies are determined to kill and destroy our person and culture. There is no amount of understanding or concession that deters them from their beliefs or their mission. America must understand that peace is only an interlude and that even that interlude is impossible to experience unless we are not only constantly preparing for war but are willing to physical act to protect our interest.

Mr. Putin is seems strong and resolved because President Obama is weak and conflicted. Putin is infected with a nationalistically founded sense of revenge; he believes that Mother Russia was robbed of its former resources by a western conspiratorial sleight-of-hand. And Obama is wandering about in search of a 21st century statesman to confer and compromise.

Our counter party in Russia has declared that Russia is a strong nuclear armed nation and it will not be denied its manifest destiny. China desires control over the South China Sea…Obama is concern about the midterm elections. One can note the disparity of interest. Obama has focused on a strategy of lessening American influence whiles our counterparties are advantaging Obama’s perception of a world that exists only in the classroom of Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton.


Authored by William Robert Barber

We have the myth, the truth, the fact, the misconceived, and an assortment of variant interpretations. Then, somewhere amongst these possibilities, are the Obama government de facto. Here is where the dividing line between the ideals of liberal progressives and the conservative appears. I do believe that to be human is to be intrinsically hypocritical and contrarian. Nonetheless, degrees of measurement between one and others are a factor when striving to achieve a meaningful definition. As a consequence of the Obama administration degree of hypocrisy and contrarianism the constitutionally derived faith in the premise that America is (still) a nation of laws not of men is tethering on an answer of “No Longer.”

The president’s number one enforcer of the nation’s laws, Secretary Holder, is obsessed with the concept of white people’s oppression of black American sovereignty and therefore willing to selectively enforce fundamental principles of justice (a citizen’s right to due process) while sympathizing with conjecture before the facts are established. In the interest of implementing the president’s progressive ideology he is willing to ignore, modify, or defer the enforcement of the nation’s laws. Under congressionally imposed oath he has refused to tell the truth.

As displayed recently in the city of Ferguson, Secretary Holder feels the pain of the city’s African American population; he and that state’s governor are in sympathy with Ferguson’s mob reaction to the shooting of Mr. Brown. In other words, prior to the presentation of evidence, before any charges have been filed, this nation’s Attorney General and the State of Missouri’s chief executive, Mr. “vigorous prosecution”, have sided with the mob.

Although not dissuaded enough by other more tumultuous problems, the president did comment on the Ferguson riots. Of course he cautioned against violence but also inserted his sympathies, understanding of the people’s displeasure of police overreaction to the destruction of private property. The address to the citizens of Ferguson was a bit confusing. But then, it was not a campaign stop or a fundraiser, so understandably the president was off his game.

Of course President Obama is confronted with a wholly-lethal totally horrific enemy in Iraq and Syria. He and his progressive confederates have cloaked the recent combat missions with Iraq as efforts in pursuit of humanitarian relief and the protection of American soldiers serving in the region — all 40 of them. What guileful dishonesty; the craftiness of the Obama administration is running straight into the abyss of shameful disregard. The hierarchy of American military leadership as well as Secretary Hagel has submitted all it will submit to the president’s ideology over facts on the ground. Reality will no longer play pretend with a wish-it-was-so President Obama strategy of “hears no evil and sees no evil”.

The world is chaotic, violent, and amoral. A nation state cannot be in the position to trust what it cannot afford to lose. The world of Obama and Kerry are fantasies and make-believes. There is no sadness or tragedy tied to the world’s reality; this is a reality that demands observance and recognition. The Muslims of the world (with exceptions) hate the Jews — that fact is a combustible that will not be wished away. Those regimes within the Middle East that have oil plans on keeping it, autocratic regimes within the region, plan on a continuance of the same governance.

Interestingly, the Muslims, Christians, and Jews of the Middle East depend on American power to protect them from those that would cut off their heads: that is the glue to platform a U.S. foreign policy. A policy founded not on American cash to the Palestinians, therefore to Hamas and other extremist, but to deny such vouches to these misguided Philistines.

I’d say America picks the side of strength, allies with those that accept our terms, and get on with the task at hand: Eliminating any and all resistance to peaceful coexistence — A Pax Americana. This is the America I am speaking of…


Authored by William Robert Barber

“Government is the problem,” recalling the quintessential conservative Ronald Regan’s famous line when advocating the righteousness of limited government. But as with President Jefferson, Reagan once elected went on to gainsay his own statement by enlarging and enhancing the power of the federal government. Today however it is not just political leadership crowing the cock-a-doodle-doo of populous sentiments. Today, a plurality of Americans, even those of conservative persuasion, view government as more than just a necessary utility, but a symbiotic dependency effectuating a guarantee for everyday essentials. For these citizens government is the reason, the cause, and the solution.

Subtly spread over a number of generations, the societal ideal that government can resolve the problem has taken firm root in the American psyche. Though this belief is opaque in contextual clarification, short on evidence, and often nebulous in form, the trust in government’s omnipotence has been ubiquitously disseminated and for the most part positively received. In an almost devilish sort of enchantment the idea that government knows best has captured the mind-sets of many citizens. Compellingly, a significant portion of citizens, from wide and varied demographics, to actually openly accept that government is or should be directly responsible for their liveliness.

Proportionate to this belief that government is the end-all solution to one’s life is the emergent cultural degeneration of American societal principles. Values such as self-reliance, work ethic, self-discipline and the acceptance of personal responsibility for ones actions are now, and increasingly so, the exception rather than the norm. The most outstanding results of this degeneration of once distinctly American societal principles are the attitudes, collective victimization complex, and the pervasive amongst the younger persons, a “you owe me” mentality.

The reasoning of such acceptance on or dependency for a government solution for what historically was considered common societal or individual aliments was the contrivance of liberal progressives; progressivism is an affiliate that flies under the flag of socialism. It was the post-WWII babies that grew up in the USA orb of plenty. It was this generation fueled by high-tech inventions that injected the concept of instant satisfaction. Inclusive was the benefit of instant communications seamlessly linked into a media industry that intensified not just the distribution of news but formed (for those too lazy to think) at-the-ready opinions of what is news-worthy, as well as, its meaningfulness. These children of WWII veterans were taught by the brethren of father FDR; they were taught that it was FDR and his progressive agenda that retrieved the nation from the despair of the “great depression,” and defeated the fascist in Germany and Japan. They were taught to believe in government. Interestingly, they were also schooled that Republicans were rich and Democrats worked in the interest of the poor and the middle class.

Their children those born in the 70’s and 80’s were led to believe that America is a nation of wrongdoers, often imperialistic in foreign policy, and that America had a long history of violently acting out its warmongering inclinations.

The latitude and longitude of government authority and its resulting imposition upon the populous has abated individual liberty and freedom; nevertheless, even when acting counter to the words if not the spirit of the constitution, government ignores and disregards lawfulness in favor of its power. The populous seem cheerfully willing to trade individual liberty and freedom for even the pretense of governmental guarantees. Disconnected notions such as blindly trusting government’s competency in lawmaking (considering the lawmakers rarely even read the bills presented) while idly permitting the ballooning of government pension obligations and blindly allowing the creation of an entrenched public service union bureaucracy to run rough shod over prudence, when such behavior is predominate it is likely that government has meandered over the abyss. When courts consider governing under the concept that the constitution is susceptible and wholly pliable to the whims of man or societal discretion, and when the governed believe government is the only true arbitrator of the public good. Our republic has, at that point, been transformed into an autocracy of progressive-elitist; a form of governing that Plato and Marcus Arilleus would consider advisable.

Quantitatively and disturbingly, (for me) government is a cell dividing multiplier. Government is a liberty and freedom eating monster. The idea of an ever expanding all-powerful government is allied with many elected representatives who believe governance is best when its grasps include every aspect of one’s liveliness. They also consider such governmental ingress an eventual constitutional right; i.e. sixteenth amendment.

The resilient once proudly existential traditional American has evolved into an American who increasingly relies on every level of governments as their raison d’être. A significant percentage of Americans are willingly, at least ostensibly, “in the land of the free and home of the brave,” to trade their individual liberty and freedom, for the sake of certain guarantees.

Well, we have federal guarantees for entitlements, social security, even public employee pension funds, including all of the military health, welfare, and retirement promises to pay. How has the government preformed on these guarantees? I wonder how those within the ranks of those who voted for and will continue to vote for liberal progressives feel about those guarantees.

Are we Americans now subjects of the government? Yes, increasingly so. I see and hear news stories wherein the protagonist notes that he or she is a college graduate, then the question: Where are the jobs? As if it is the direct responsibility of the elected or some government agency to secure a job for that college graduate.

I think Reagan had it right…we Americans had better get our act together and retrograde back to our ancestral traditions as such regress applies to a principled life wherein blaming, lamenting, and figuring how to take from the more to give to the less is discarded as un-American. Withstanding the question more government is hardly ever the answer and often enough never the solution.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Contrary to popular and media insistence, neither government nor its leadership creates private sector employment. The why-fore of this readily believable stratagem that government can mandate or the sanguinely sage could legislate (private sector employment) is to believe a Navajo rain dance will bring about a deluge.

In the first cause, how in the world did the federal government position itself to suppose that it could create private sector employment? Well, to the detriment of a capitalistic economy, the steady, ever determined encroachment of central government power over what was once the sacrosanct concept of limited government is a great part of the answer. The federal government has taken on as principles of its own the liberal progressive manifesto that government is obligated to take from the mainstream of the self creating and financially sufficient worker bees and give these proceeds to the “needy.” In the process of ceding to those progressive principles government expansiveness has grown gargantuan in scope and substance. Correspondingly, taxes and fees of all descriptive have risen, divided, and multiplied; and so far there is no real end in sight to the federal government’s policy of ever-increasing taxation.

The American government of 1789 unambiguously divided power within its charter; it enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 the endowed authority of the central government. Withstanding, this definitive affirmation (of limited powers) when measured against the day-to-day utilization of federal governing over the last hundred years one must ask, “Does the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers had envisioned still endure?”

Respectful of constitutional tradition and the cultural heritage of dynamic-individualism, there are those — particularly the fiscal, social, and politically disposed liberal progressive populace — that whole-heartedly believe that the States and the individual cannot be trusted with the right of sovereign respect. Instead it is the central government that is rightfully positioned to encapsulate the disposition of the judicious and trustful arbitrator. Therefore, in the interest of propagating, such fancifulness progressives have created the concept of a living, breathing, and relatively flexible interpretation of the Constitution. Within the context of that interpretive, a constitutional dictum such as the ‘Commerce Clause’ is exampled for expansive interpretation and engineered to fit into what progressives would call the modern era.

The justification for such redrafting of the Framers’ original is also prompted by some great malady, a crisis of stupendous magnitude, or the contrivance thereof. Usually the basis for alternating common practice in form or by statutory means is the discovery of some grave social or fiscal unfairness. The typical unfairness is always populous in style and scant in substance. Nevertheless, the unfairness is one that should have been attended to long ago. As the story goes, the nearly evil, opaquely defined, purposefully intended special interest, probably aligned with the wealthy, are actively working against the common welfare of the community so to enrich themselves or their baneful corporations.

Herein steps Obama the populist armed with promises of “change we can believe in.” Obama defines his political Krieg as between his acolytes, the moral positive, represented as the never politically motivated good-guys always working in the best interest of the common good contested against those of the immoral negative, representing the vilest and base of human instincts. The president has described these counter-to-Obama forces as the greedy and wealthy, oil and financial corporations, Republicans, and certainly, those far right radical Tea Party members.

All the documented evidence that government has some intrinsic sense of or for good judgment, business acumen, or even the sanity of consistent judiciousness points to the contrary. George the III imposed the Mercantile System, Napoleon the Blocus Continental, and of course this country’s trade tariffs, attempts at price controls, and the dogged determination of some presidential administrations and congresses to pervert the natural order of the capitalistic marketplace with protectionist embargos. All of these ‘government inspired schemes failed.

Recently, the Obama administration’s efforts to pick winners within the marketplace cost taxpayers at the very least multi-millions. Excessive taxation, burdensome regulation, and spending taxpayer monies with such blatant disdain is not an economic stimulus it is silly, disregarding of the facts, and seriously detrimental to the economic welfare of this nation.

I do wish I could simply blame the Democrats but the blame extends deep into the Republican ranks as well. I just do not understand this persistent inclination by those in power to always error on the side of big government.


Authored by William Robert Barber

There has sprouted up a stylish must-do, a societal nicety, a gesture that seems to beget other gestures of the identical meaningfulness, and frankly, juxtaposed with a bit of simpatico I do understand the why fore. Nevertheless, I take issue with its explicit and implicit implications.

Firstly, I best reveal the irritant: “Thank you for your service…” are the words uttered as they reach out either by hand or sentiment to congratulate the service member or former member. Normally, such a thank is extended from those fellow citizens that have not (for whatever reason) served in the armed forces.

Surely, by now the reader is befuddled by my peeve and a bit perplexed as to why. The answer is quite direct: Undertaking service to my country is nothing for my fellow citizens to thank me for. Service is an obligatory of citizenship and a common virtue that does not warrant adulation. Certainly, I am not suggesting that a citizen of this country must or even should serve in the armed forces — not at all; I am suggesting that if my fellow citizens believe that common virtue is extra-ordinary and deserves special attention, then the common denomination of virtue is directly abated.

I served the interest of my nation state in times of peace as well as war; I am proud to be a United States Marine. Withstanding, I am just as proud of those fellow citizens — whether they served in the armed forces or not — that pay their taxes, vote, harmoniously keep their families together, recognize and maintain their fidelity to community, obey the laws, and purposefully strive to strengthen the wherewithal of not only American values but also note their obligation to express responsibility for humankind.

This nation functions by fields and networks of symbiosis; one feeds upon and relies upon the other. Respective of the forces of counter, of the anti, and the converse we are all tied together in one effort. We are bound together as dependants and interdependent. Each individual is important to the whole. Indeed it is the idea of an individual’s value the make us so exceptional a nation.

Soldiers serve and like the police, fire, and many, many, other professions that are so very critical even dangerous they make their contribution. But I think, in the interest of every citizen, that the common denomination of citizenship should be extraordinarily high.

For me, my service was an obligation and a privilege; my countrymen owe me absolutely nothing, not even a thank you. I owe my country everything…for me it is an honor to call myself an American.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Every day, informational sources validate a constant: That divisiveness is a commonality amongst humankind and that satisfaction is no more than a fleeting emotion. Amidst the divisiveness and fleeting satisfaction are the all too human temporal effects of pride, unfettered ego, and dishonesty. These effects are coupled to other human traits such as the waste of time, money, living things, and the preponderance of general bullshitski.

Thank goodness… those who know all things (die Hochstudierten) have singled out the problems, excogitated the issues of concern, and firmly placed the solutions before the populus. Interestingly, as if to reconfirm the palpable, it is predetermined by the recipients of these solutions that the presumptive of askance applies. In other words, even the process of defining the problems and offering the solutions is divisive.

Respective of – or maybe because of – our superior intelligence, we humans have firmly rejected the Tower of Babel concept as a doable possibility. We humans are so lustful in our divisive stubbornness that any effort to dissuade our predeterminations is often met with hostility. Empirical evidence that proves contrary to the presently held ideologically beliefs, mores, and affirmations of precedence will NOT prevail.

Nevertheless, the multimedia demands, or should I say points out (at every opportunity) that they represent the voting public, and the voting public demands that the Republicans get along with the Democrats. There’s a tone of caution expressed (by the media) to the GOP, noting that despite their 63 seat pick-up in the House of Representatives they should not consider such an elective victory a mandate; it is imperative, the multimedia strongly suggests, that Obama is met halfway. This of course is the same media that voted heart and soul for Obama; the very same media that overreached its role as a “free press” in reporting on the Obama campaign… hmm, they now have advice for the Republicans.

I think the idea or practice of congressional bipartisanism on material issues requires the intake of mind-altering drugs; Dr. Timothy Leary (LSD) would be the consultant and dispenser. Noting that for many of the liberal progressives and most of the media the effect of LSD is organic to their metabolism; therefore, requiring no synthetic Dr. Leary stimuli. Yes, I am making a funny…

But the point is that the contesting by the diametrically opposed is of greater advantage than the compromise of principles. The conflict of ideas should be limited to oral persuasion remembering that the object of the persuasion is to induce consensus. There is little need or believability of/for belief if it is not strongly held.

Politics require artfulness. Many observers of politicians and their politics may include caginess, deception, and craftiness as components of politics. Winning a contested election is the successful management of chaos. Kind of like a feeding frenzy amongst the brethren. Of course campaigning has nothing to do with governing but everything with promising. Governing, particularly for house members, has more to do with the retention of office than the interest of the nation — if the interest of the nation intersects with retaining office-super; but if not, then the retention of power is the value.

The preceding paragraph is the reality and power of personality. This force of personality has as much to do with governing as the statutory requirements thereof. It is not pretty. It is corrupt. It is far from perfect. It is the very best political system in the world; but it does not inherently necessitate bipartisanism.

If congress is to govern it must have a definitive economic model. As corollary political measures have economic consequences, no politician can legislate without engaging the opinions and advise of economist. Of course the economist engaged by the White House always seems to be aligned with the President’s ideological determination.

Politicians maybe charismatic, some are bullies, others sway easily to the beat of another’s drum. But economists have an entirely different persona; well, maybe façade is a better descriptive. By purposeful design, economist constitutes an illusion of pretentiousness; after all, they must present themselves as harbingers. They also have the advantage of an affable naissance; unlike politicians, just about the entire profession of quotable economists is distilled within the providences of academia.

It is an amusing mix, the politician with the economist; each searching for symbioses, but acknowledging their pins and needles reality. Usually, it is the politician’s ideological inclination that selects the economist whose duty requires numbers, words, and ambiguity to coincide with the politician’s design. If the economist is wrong, such as the recent declaration of 8% unemployment, the politician sidesteps to counter any responsibility.

Once again, divisiveness and fleeting satisfaction are the feckless continuum; to ask for bipartisanism amongst the elected is wistful, even counterintuitive to the interest of the nation.