Authored by William Robert Barber

In the year 1781, adjoining Yorktown, Virginia British General Charles Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington while tradition recalls the British band playing an English ballad, “The World Turned Upside Down”. This American military victory was unbelievable.

The election of 2016 is a shining reflection of wanderings amiss, another unbelievable: Two wholly unqualified candidates are the electorates’ choice. In this election, innuendos, rumors, and factoids have suppressed the normalities of voter concerns, policies, and issues. The only pertinent question is: which one of the two nominees is the worst?

Long ago, American individualism was forsaken for the opaque assurance of personal security. The prevalent idea that government knows best has prompted a domestic policy wherein amoral secularism has inspired a predisposition to further — no matter the empirical evidence to the contrary — the outright dismissal of competitive ideals. Liberal progressivism has engulfed and is chocking the vitality out of the credo of American exceptionalism.  Congress and the Constitution: Be damned! Progressive leadership favors depositing American foreign policy decisions to the feckless United Nations; multilateralism and the internationalism of European socialism is their ultimate goal.

In today’s complex of technological options the means and power to influence thought is mighty. The media, all types and varieties, have extraordinary power over voter behavior. In this election cycle a lie, a purposeful misdirection, a circumvention of the truth in the interest of conflation or befuddlement has been lethally weaponized. 

An overwhelming amount of television and news print media has taken as a mission of consequence the political defeat of Donald Trump. They equate Trump as a bête noire, a person that is irredeemably a hundred times as dangerous as Nixon.

As a standalone Trump is contestably far from the average presidential hopeful. However, compare the two: Trump’s faux claims, his past disgusting unsolicited sensual advances toward women, his inability to disguise his narcissism, and his instinctual self-destructive behavior versus Hillary Clinton’s unabashed persistence of lying directly to the American people, her decisions regarding Russian engagement, the Iranian deal, her disastrous approach to Libya coupled with her unforgivably incorrigible acts and non-acts regarding Benghazi. Trump is no prize — but his actions never killed people! Hillary, in concert with President Obama, is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Hillary is an ideologically dedicated progressive who will undermine this nation’s constitution. Donald is not Hillary… and the world has turned upside down; given the choice before me I will vote for Donald.


Authored by William Robert Barber

A clash is coming. This pending conflict over which opposing political ideal prevails is of paramount importance; the outcome will definitively define the operating meaningfulness of America. This forthcoming contretemps is as critical to the country’s future as the affirmation of the Declaration of Independence, ratification of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution of the United States. The victor defines this nation’s character, ethos, and legislative values for generations to come.

Interestingly, for all of us engaged in this ‘struggle-imperative,’ unlike other conflicts, this pending clash is not open ended. We participants know the exact term as well as the “définitif real” of victory — we also understand that defeat means the end of limited government as a viable concept. The American fortitude of existentialism inclusive of the spirit of American exceptionalism will be discarded in favor of the collective common denominator.

The contesting of the electorate’s heart and mind will start on January 5, 2011 and end on November 2, 2012. The political ideas of liberal progressivism versus conservative limited government principles will be debated in every neighborhood’s nook and corner. From the board room to the halls of academia, from shore to shore, throughout the nation; from the kitchen table to gatherings within the various governing locals: the people of the United States will be asked to bend an attentive ear to a persistent political message. Doubtlessly, the following will occur: Motivated by political advertising and the need to enhance readership or viewership, all venues of media will be taking advantage of the pending bonanza. Unions with lots of cash will summon the faithful so to declare their perspective, the ideologically inspired from the left to right political perspective will pontificate, politicians motivated by the reality of counter-interest victory will lustfully enunciate, President Obama’s “bully pulpit” will typify a persuasion that has run amuck.

Obama’s banner of liberal progressive legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare will be assaulted by the Republicans; the Dodd-Frank legislation is another target of Republican interest. The question is, can the 112 Congress approach all federal government spending, line by line, department by department, which of course includes all programs that would not exist were it not for federal funding, and specifically hound federal departments that simply duplicate function or whose function is deemed unnecessary be shut down?

The Democrats know that their current legislation is in danger only if they lose the presidential election of 2012; so their task will be to thwart all Republican non-funding tactics or formal legislative challenges until that election. Naturally, at the same time the Democrats need to build a positive political consensus amongst the voters as well as successfully fight off Republican efforts to dismantle their accomplishments.

I do believe that if conservatives do not sweep the next election — indeed, the sweep must include a super-majority in the two legislative branches — a politically conservative America will be politically stymied by the liberal progressive minority. From a strictly domestic perspective, liberal progressive in the garb of Democrats is not our only concern. If we citizens are not careful with our votes we will end a nation managed by legal opinions. Wherein congress is set-aside in favor of judicial considerations.

Once this nation accepts the government as the prime mover in all things and items of material value, the core of this nation will soften, our intestinal fortitude will no longer chose the courage demanded of leadership. American leadership will drift and flounder and at the risk of an ever increasingly dangerous world this nation will NOT adhere to its worldwide responsibilities. Instead, America will position itself into a bureaucratic-mediocrity wherein the United Nations will assume the role of world leader.

These next two years leading up to the election of 2012, are critical for this nation and its destiny; at risk is the very meaning of America. Additionally, the futuristic interruptive of liberty, individual freedom, and a truly representative limited-government is hanging in suspension awaiting resolution.


Authored by William Robert Barber

“Wish it was so,” is not a pillar, keystone, nor buttress to any construct. Wishing is not a tangible. Wishing though at times entertaining is a whimsical endeavor. Nevertheless, the foreign policy initiatives of this nation mimic the whimsical; furthermore, if such policy initiatives were applied as a surreal convenience, the resulting sum of efforts would be futile. There could be no more perfect example of the whimsical and wishful than this nation’s capriciously lengthy dialogue with North Korea.

President Truman decided it was in this nation’s interest to commit American blood and treasure to stopping the invasion of South Korea. So instead of dropping an atomic bomb or invading North Korea he and his generals, admirals, and politicians joined a United Nations endorsed plan. This plan was not tactically sensible or strategically sound. It was a mas-o-menos plan of pushing back the bully that pushed first. The invasion of the north upon the south was defended by UN forces (another descriptive for “let’s spill American blood”) as if this was a playground dispute.

Amazingly, to the chagrin of the political leadership in congress, the plan failed. American dead and wounded piled up. The North Koreans ran amok — it did not look good. Stage left enters General MacArthur. The general accesses the situation and executes a bold offensive (an amphibious landing at Inchon) that is so successful it pushes the North Koreans back to the Chinese border. Finally the dynamics of the war have abruptly changed; the invaders are pushed back onto the Chinese border.

However, contrary to MacArthur’s prediction, the Chinese enter the war by the thousands; Truman does not drop the atom bomb nor does he invade China’s mainland. Americans continue to be killed. No matter, Truman will not face the reality of a meaningful decision; MacArthur’s army and marines are overwhelmed and get pushed back… Americans continue to die. MacArthur is relieved of command. Thereafter, Truman’s term of office is ended; he retires to Missouri.

Enter stage right; Eisenhower is elected with the pledge that he will end the war. Note he did not say he would win the war. Well, he got that done. And the N. Koreans have abused this nation ever since.

In 1952, America failed in its obligation to eliminate a military aggressor. The crystal clear necessity was to ignominiously defeat the communist north. America settled for the wistfulness of convenience and the acceptance of an interlude instead of a victory. Now this gangster nation has weapons of mass destruction, distributed its technology, and will be a very real threat to the sector as well as the world for as long as there is a North Korea. Abuse has escalated to the deployment and possible detonation of a weapon of mass destruction. America has permitted an army of over 1 million strong to be managed by a rouge state and once again, we wish…

Of course this policy of “wish it was so,” continues; America is in this fix because we, despite our willingness to spill the blood of our people, spend the gold and silver of our treasury. We insist on evaluating the world not as it is empirically evidenced, but by how we wish it to be. It is as if we have produced, written, and directed a Pepsi Cola commercial wherein we conceive and implement our foreign policy. Well, at least we are not pledging to close down Guantanamo or procure our nation’s civil courts to adjudicate terrorist-killers of purposeful intent to kill innocents. At least we have not stooped to that sort of silliness and flagellation.


Authored by William Robert Barber

Lost in the never-never land of wish-it-was-true, the Obama administration meanders about. Led by Hillary, the leader of team Obama, U.S. foreign policy prods along moving a pawn, positioning a knight, threatening; well, not really threatening, instead they note, almost apologetically, of America’s capability of strategic checkmate sweeps across the chessboard. Now of course Venezuela and North Korea may consider Hillary’s state department threatening. So – just in case – she follows up any statement of policy that could be taken as an offensive remark with an assurance that any strategic checkmate sweep across the chessboard is possible only with UN Security Council agreement.

Obama’s representative, in keeping with the August intellectualism of progressive thought, thrives within the sublimity of contemplative hesitation. From time to time, as if to satisfy an unwritten script and develop the virtues of a heroin, protagonist Hillary feigns an aggressive posture. In reality, in step with Obama, she is disoriented and bewildered by the adversarial temperament of nation states. It is unimaginable to the Obama team that the sensibility of the president’s persuasion – much less his charming charisma – would not be enough to convince the lamb to lay with the lion.

I think they are too deep in theoretical thought to match policy to the ever-changing nuances of real time needs. Their contemplative deliberation requires the enjoinment of the many to judicious study. As a consequence of many opinions the process breeds hesitation and misunderstandings; a kind of puzzled enigma-like bafflement regarding the exactness of the administration’s intent. The resulting sum of the team Obama efforts could lead one to believe that their decision making form is disjointed and circular instead of straightforward and crystal, lacking in decisiveness and confused.

The need of our nation to demonstrate a clear unambiguous position on Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and at the same time by declaration and behavior display unequivocal support for our allies, are obvious to the international community. Instead, team Obama restricts its resources to the virtues of wishing and hoping, begging and pleading.

Iran is determined. North Korea is mad. All the while the United States invests and counters such challenges with the mysticism of Obama inspired persuasion. The nation’s Secretary of State addresses the issues of nuclear proliferation and rogue madness by endless negotiations. This particular Obama/Hillary policy is a filler tactic wherein procrastination is a better explanation of effort than the truth — which is: North Korea has stymied the most powerful nation on earth and Iran snubs this country as if it were a banana republic.

Obama and Hillary view China and Russia as partners of parity and good faith, admitting to the existence of disagreements, but mitigating such disagreements with the assurance that what was lacking (because of Bush’s cowboy arrogance) was tolerance, understanding, the artfulness of listening, and the meaningfulness of genuine cooperation. Conversely, China and Russia view the Obama administration as elites of the bourgeoisie; naive politicians with autocratic inclinations blended with arrogant self-regard who consider themselves Avant Garde and “cool”. An administration whose foreign policy, when disrobed, is nothing more than a kindergarten level approach to international relations; a policy that leads with endorsing the qualities of sharing and ends with a sort of “let’s all get along” western style simpatico.

I do not believe that the Obama/Hillary foreign policy stands any chance of reform or change. They are stuck firstly with an ideological predetermination of reality and secondly with a disabled sensory cognitive. My only comfort resides in the military’s artful persuasion and the response of the American people when team Obama proposes a policy initiative that is way too naive.


Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama and his plutocrats must be stopped…


Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there are these midterm elections…


Authored by William Robert Barber

From about the turn of the 1900’s we Americans have taken upon ourselves to expend our blood and treasury in Cuba, Nicaragua, the Philippines, China, the Mexican border skirmishes, France, and Belgium. Now, fast-forward another twenty years and into the present to include Germany, Italy, North Africa, Korea, the Pacific islands, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other distant lands that five minutes of research could verify. Thousands upon thousands of Americans have died directly from battle wounds and thousands more from disease, shock, sorrow, and starvation as a consequence of their engagement.

I do believe that the two World Wars not only killed, murdered, and maimed millions of humans. But in fact, the devastation inflicted upon humankind by their fellow humans was/is to a large part caused by the naive, imprudent foreign policy, exercised by this nation’s leadership. The list of such naïve and imprudent policies initiated by former American presidents consists of certainly more than the two noted below.

However, Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt are perfect leadership models of this nation’s credulously unwise policies.

Wilson was an international idealist. A liberal progressive leader, serving as president before and during World War One. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a liberal progressive who grew to favor an oligarchic-socialist form of governing, he too was also president prior to and during the last World War.

Both leaders utilized the reason of present danger and economic emergency to dramatically enlarge the qualitative size of government power. Interestingly, in proportion to the enhancement of government in general, specifically, so grew the power of the executive branch. Irrespective of the growth of their domestic and international power, both of these leaders, Wilson as one of the victors of The Great War allowed the United States to be bullied and ostracized by his wartime allies. The other, with the atom bomb exclusively within his arsenal, the largest American Army ever station and at the ready in Europe, withstanding, Roosevelt does not protect the Europeans from Stalin. As if stymied, unable to comprehend the obvious and connect the dots. Ignoring the advice of Churchill, to the detriment of a democratic Europe, Roosevelt’s naive policies worked in favor of Soviet dominance; when challenged by a totalitarian regime, this American president faltered and failed to secure the peace. Roosevelt’s inaction serviced the Soviet Union as if the west was a Stalinist ally. In the grand game between a totalitarian dictatorship and a democratically elected republic, the good guys suffered an ignominious defeat. Roosevelt, the leader of the free world, ceded his Queen for fear of the opposition’s many pawns.

The Traité de Paix de Versailles and the Potsdamer Konferenz set the stage for future wars by creating (or allowing to be created) issues, concerns, and situations that preempted the next violent engagement. Versailles created draconian reparations upon Germany’s citizens; Potsdam ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin’s Russia. And if that was not enough, idiocy western leadership agreed on a divided Korea.

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson was elected president. In 1913, progressive income tax was legislated with the Revenue Act. This one law in short order would empower the federal government beyond the scope of the founder’s intent; this law debilitated state’s rights from its origin; this one law moved America from a republic to a government of and by federal mandate. This law was preceded and post-ceded by the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission, Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Federal Farm Loan Act. This progressive president, with the enabling of a Democratic congress, was the original “change you can believe in”… Woodrow Wilson was the presidential precursor to Barrack Obama.

He narrowly won the reelection in 1916 with the promise of keeping America out of “that fracas” in Europe. Of course that lasted until Germany sank the ‘Lusitania’, and by 1917 American soldiers and marines were in France. Wilson proceeded to form the War Industries Board, promoted labor unions, took over railroads, and enacted the Lever Act. This Lever fellow was an elected representative, of course a Democrat, who, at the prodding of President Wilson, decided it would be a very good idea to control food and fuel — hence the Lever Act. Sounds familiar? This legislation empowered a “Food Administrator” to oversee the working of this new government agency. The act also banned the use of “distilled spirits” from any produce that was used for food — the agency even tried to set the price of wheat. I trust one can visualize the resemblance between the Wilson administration and Obama’s.

Right after the First World War, President Wilson’s vision to guarantee the prophesy of “war to end all wars,” was to engage the United States in a global community of nations, an entity named The League of Nations. Although congress rejected the membership, President Wilson won a Nobel Peace Prize for his outline of “Fourteen Points”, a formula to entice Germany’s surrender while blueprinting a world order after the war. Wilson, as with Obama, visualized the world as they wished it to be; they both fail(ed) to see the world for what it truly is.

Not unlike President Obama, President Wilson’s experience was either public service or academia; he lacked the understanding of a world wherein persuasion was not a matter of finding a podium to exercise his rhetorical sensibilities. He just could not grasp that persuasion in the world of nation states is a matter of martial power. Either the direct use of such power or the indirect threat of power; this was the world of England, France, and Italy, his allied partners. In the finality, Wilson’s foreign policy concepts died an ignominious death; retributions ruled the Treaty of Versailles and while still looking for the cheese, the spring on the mousetrap was set; the next war would be even more brutal than the last.

Wilson, Roosevelt, and Obama all attended Harvard; none of them ever ran a private enterprise. Interestingly, they all shared the oneness of socialistic economic principles, large governments, and the belief that they could, by the power of their intellect or the coercive power of government, bend spoons in midair. And if they failed at that — surely they could bend any person or institution to their will.

Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1932 and passed away April 1945, in office. When he died away, thousand wept. He had been president longer than anyone. Indeed, so long that after his death congress passed an amendment to the constitution prohibiting a president’s term of office past two terms.

This is the man that took the nation off of the gold standard, favored deficit financing, unprecedented concessions to labor, created Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, and most outstanding, after his reign government could legally regulate the economy. We have all heard of his attempt to stack the Supreme Court and the invalidation of a few of his government’s programs.

Roosevelt is credited by many as saving the American people from the ravages of The Great Depression; of course there are those who feel FDR’s economic policies enabled the depression instead of abating its effect. But all will agree that he was a strong wartime leader. Of course this is also the president that detained Japanese Americans in internment camps for the duration of the war, deprived them of their property, liberty, and citizenry rights. This president was a liberal-progressive with strong socialist-like inclinations; he reminds me of President Obama’s political, economic, and social preferences.

I do believe that because this nation’s leadership decided to judge worldly events through the distortion of a liberal progressive’s naïve predeterminations, the continuum of violent conflict was and is a constant liability. Note that when this nation was confronted by a declaration of emergency, whether it is formed by domestic or foreign influence, government is enlarged and power-enriched to the few. Fear has been the wherewithal of liberal progressives to gain power and extend their ideological agenda.

In every instance of rule by an emergency agenda, personal liberty and individual freedom is being abated.

When will we Americans ever understand that weakness begets aggression? That peace is not a reasonable foreign policy goal? That the preservation of the ‘American Exception’ is in fact an intrinsic necessity, a value of worldwide priority? America cannot continue to win the war and lose the peace. The bona-fide relationship between the world’s nation states is founded on self-interest and without physical reality, omnipotent American power, Russia and China will fill the vacuum. The cost for liberty and freedom is always materialized into blood and gold; the fare is prohibitive. Leadership must reconcile the difference between the worlds as we wish it to be and as it truly is. This is no place for idealistic fantasies…


Authored by William Robert Barber

Geithner, Holder, Clinton, and the man in the White House have bridged the distance from election promises to ongoing policies.  For these servants of the people, Obama policy is no longer the simple consideration of a campaign promise.  Time on the job has eclipsed these wannabe elected politicians into the measurable.  The liberal-progressives won the election; as a consequence, they have enacted a number of distinctively marked ‘result of Obama’ principles of action.  They have been in office the better part of a year — the time has come to consider their effects and results.

On foreign policy, better described as the Obama-Clinton diplomacy of hopefulness, the great persuader and his trusty Secretary of State are deeply committed to a foreign policy of national humility.  By incorporating the craftiness of first publicly apologizing for the Bush era specifically, but also for America’s unilateral behavior in general, this Obama-Clinton approach to interfacing with the international community is followed up with attentive listening and deep solemn contemplating.

How is this strategy working for the administration?

China will not devalue its currency or meaningfully participate in denying Iran the utility of its resources.   The former Red Menace will not discourage North Korean hostilities in favor of US policy.  Instead, President Hu Jintao warns Mr. Obama of the obvious:  Rising deficit, the negative effect of a devalued dollar, while complaining of a 20% decrease in his country’s export.

As Russia is pursuing its interest, which includes contracting with Iran so to harness and control the natural gas market for export to Western Europe, Obama is sidelining Poland, Ukraine, and Georgia, the former colonies of the Mother Russia.  Russia understands the Obama weakness, knowing he will never apply unrestrained American power.  As evidence, this American president — while in a time of war — stated that he is not interested in victory.

North Korea is a wild card.  At the very worst, North Korea could, for reasons unreasonable, fire that nuclear armed missile.  The only nation with the military might to deter such an act is the United States; but they too, understand that Obama will hesitate.  North Korea is a gangster nation.

The far left of the liberal progressive Democratic Party is weary of tolerating a continuance of the Afghanistan war and rue the ploy of the good war in order to defeat Bush’s Iraq war.  They want the force of arms harnessed and the expending of treasure to cease.  After all, they have other places to spend those billions of dollars.

Inclusive of the rudiments of his foreign policy, Obama seems to conceptualize that the solution to America’s international concerns resides in reorganizing the country’s domestic issues.  If his administration could just, by what ever means, spread the wealth, socialize the economy, enable green energy, revive unions, legalize the illegal immigrants, and nationalize healthcare, all the nations of the world would offer their friendship and cooperation.   I do believe that after the dust of this liberal-progressive socialist administration settles, when blaming Bush will no longer suffice, when the Republicans, Tea Baggers, independent voters, and capitalistic profiteers have had enough of the Democrats libelous innuendos, I do believe one will discover — because the media elite will never concede such a factual — that the Obama-Clinton foreign policy is indefinable because it is functionally indiscernible.

Though one may try, the reality is that one cannot understand the material thesis or the logic of the Obama Doctrine.  Where is the logic?  What is the motivational goal of those policy makers?  Do the creators of Obama-Clinton foreign policy have an end game?  Or is it that the end game is so sophisticated, so enriched by cerebral magnification that the only answer for the unwashed non-Harvard schooled is to have the faith of Saint Paul and simply believe in President Obama?

When will American patience end? How much longer are we going to accept, even begrudgingly, this administration’s constancy of real world naiveté?  Obama’s foreign policy is nothing less than a proliferating variety of runic distortions and needlessly opaque affirmations that lack any basis of practical relevance.

The president and his ideologues live in a world apart, an alternate state of wish-it-was-so.  This Obama belief-theme, coupled with Fabian Society objectives, is regretfully not an academic exercise in possibilities.  This is a policy, vigorously applied and wantonly designed to effectively abate US power and prestige; it will result in this nation’s eventual loss of sovereignty.  The Obama-Clinton duo does not live in the empirical factual.  Indeed, they prefer the mystical sublime of the mythological; their ideal is a synthesis of reality.  Mr. O. and Mrs. C. have created a play-pretend of a world; a place where nation states can debate, a place of neverland where the merits of humanism, kindness, love,  and mutual respect override all instincts to the contrary.  A place like the United Nations befits their ideal.  Of course the United Nations is not such a place — but these two would never permit facts to reset their ideological absolutes.

If foreign policy issues should not be enough of a cause for the Obama administration: Unemployment is soaring, the Obama solution is to have a summit.  This is madness.  Well, actually madness is allowing terrorists, the very same fellows that masterminded the killing of thousands of Americans, the very same constitutional rights as those of the people they killed.  That sort of madness, perpetrated by a clueless politician masquerading as this nation’s chief law enforcement officer, does directly endanger the citizens of New York City and the nation.  And then there is Geithner…


Authored by William Robert Barber

I am 65 years of age; old enough to have fought in the Vietnam War. If I was 85 years old, I could have fought in WWI; if 76, I could have participated in the Korean Conflict. If 99 years of age, WWI and if just a little older, the Spanish-American War. Sadly, the children of those that fought in Vietnam are now killing, dying, maiming, and being maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since its inception, America has engaged in a number of benchmark hostilities; these events coupled set the standard of this nation’s history. Withstanding America’s long and consistent narrative of warlike behavior, it would be wrongheaded to suggest that successive administrations, from different political affiliations that extend as far back as the Spanish-American War, was all war-mongering Philistines, indifferent to utilizing peaceful means to settle conflicting interest.

Instead, I think the world is, has been, and more than likely will always be, a hostile environment. I also believe that peace as commonly defined is a delusion. Factually, peace has not ever existed and does not now exist. To push the denial just a bit further, I do believe that peace, as popularly defined, is unattainable. If one agrees with these hypotheses, then it follows that a foreign policy designed to establish or attain peace is an illusionary goal, unworthy of effort.

Our current policy is immersed in issues of lethal proportion. I deduce that there has never been a more dangerous time for America. Religious zealots of Muslim origin have submitted to a doctrine of holy war against the West and specifically against the Anglo Christian peoples of the world. It is their intent to destroy the Judeo-Christian alliance by either converting or killing them.

This nation has many enemies which would include North Korea, Iran, Syria, and their martial compatriots. These are the very same provocateurs of terrorism that pledge destruction while complimenting such pledges with exemplifying horrific behavior. To negotiate with those that espouses destruction as a means to their end is not only a waste of effort but takes the nation off focus. Just because our state department creates an unsubstantiated assumption that such negotiations are in the interest of peacefulness, does not mean that in real terms such actions will transmute a negative into a positive. Such head-in-the-sand approach to reality is only an acknowledgement of wishful diplomacy which will never substitute artful statecraft.

Our present action and counter-action will not settle our disagreements; at best our efforts only prolong the inevitable. At worst, putting off the inevitable (war) only strengthens the counter parties’ military might and enforces the counter parties’ belief that as part of their diplomatic efforts, America will not utilize military might to achieve a goal. Clearly, the Obama administration will not go to war to preserve or protect America’s interest. As a consequence, any and all efforts are not sufficient of a deterrent to counter North Korea, Iran, or Syria’s intent on executing war-like measures detrimental to this nation’s interest.

The Obama administration did not set a precedent; even Bush would not commit American might as it should have been deployed. America somehow has taken on the presumption that the exercise of power is inherently a limited act. How absolutely absurd; but is that not our policy?

At a minimum, at least since the ending portion of WWII, our administrations, in unison with congress, have tasked our armed forces with missions that they deem necessary while hampering our forces’ ability to wage war.

For example, Eisenhower’s decision to allow the Russians to take Berlin; Roosevelt and Truman’s ineptness at understanding Russian intentions while dealing directly with a brutal dictator — the very same person that signed a treaty with Hitler and participated in the invasion of Poland; Stalin was a rat and still, these two presidents looked away from the obvious. Imagine, America had the strongest navy and army in the world, logistically in place, with the atomic bomb — and within five years after the end of WWII, freedom-loving peoples still lost China to Mao and Eastern Europe to Stalin.

We committed our forces to Korea to stop and impede an invasion from the north. Right there, at that very moment, this nation’s leaders should have known we were in trouble. Stop and impede is not wiping out the root of North Korean aggressiveness. It is instead the equivalent of pushing the bully back rather than smashing him in the nose, gouging out his eyes, and breaking both his arms. Today, because of our faint-hearted unwillingness to destroy North Korean command, control, and political hierarchy, North Korea is a rouge totalitarian nation armed with nuclear weapons.

Eisenhower enabled the CIA to recruit, train, and arm Cuban dissidents; he promised air support for their invasion. Kennedy permitted the invasion to go forward but reneged on air support… the invasion failed. This demonstration of weakness and timidity, this blatant disregard for those lives within the invasion force, bolstered Castro’s image and prestige. Domestically and throughout the world, Castro confirmed that America can be managed and manipulated; it also verified that American resolve is limited. Khrushchev and his politburo were watching.

President Kennedy is credited with ending the Cuban missile threat — which only existed because we did not invade Cuba!

Laos and Vietnam are other examples of America’s inability to commit to a foreign policy task; at the time, we actually believed that a show of force was enough. How very silly of us. Such harebrained behavior all stems from a canon of foolish naïveté; this American doctrine of naïveté established precedence that is very hard to overcome. After all, our presidents want to be re-elected or revered; elected representatives want the wind at their back; the entire objective is retention of power, therefore the concern is safeguarding political interest. Hence, a guiding rule of the elected applied: Controversy in any form should be avoided.

From a strategic, even tactical prospective, in order to disable the North Vietnamese from invading the South Vietnamese, the United States should have invaded the North. That should have been the minimum requirement for engagement; if congress disapproved of such an invasion then it would be clear that America could not support the South Vietnamese people. But once again the policy half-measure won the argument and 58,000 or so Americans, not to mention many thousands more of Vietnamese, lost their lives because of the bewildering incompetence of the administration(s) and congress(es).

Soon, Iran will have a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver and America is immersed in the utility of the same head-in-the-sand foreign policy; a policy of half-measure and denial. This administration (not unlike the many that preceded Teddy Roosevelt) will not accept the reality of world affairs and as a consequence, there are two distinctive operating dimensions. One is the department-agencies of state and the other real-time reality. Neither seems impaired by the existence of the other.

However, unlike the foreign policy challenges of yesterday, this time the threat has the biological, radiological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to choose from. This particular threat has demonstrated its resolve by killing thousands of innocents (regardless of their sameness of religion); what they want, no sane person or state can give them. There is nothing to negotiate over, no other options are open to the West, except deterrence by any and all means.

But instead of addressing the issue unilaterally and head-on, the Obama administration is contemplating self-invented options where no option exists. Obama will inevitably break with half-measure and just execute a full measure of denial.

Iran will soon have a nuclear weapon; neither Israel nor the United States will act to eliminate this threat to Middle East stability. There will be no embargo or blockade, the UN will accept an Iranian declaration that these weapons are for defensive measures only; Obama and Clinton will submit to the UN acceptance.

Iranian prestige will rise, particularly amongst the hard-line fringe of Islamic militarism. Syria notes the weakness and re-establishes final control of Lebanon. The political-terrorist tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas will be validated; by any and all means the radical elements of Islam will dominate over the moderate. The stage will be set for WWIII…