29 03 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Bipartisan, meaning cooperation, agreement, and compromise as practiced by this nation’s political parties, is definitively a misnomer of delineation. Considering the diametric differing of political ideology, statecraft, and policies, after eight years of Presidents Bush and Obama this polarized right-to-left has had a whipsawed effect on the electors.

And then there’s President Trump, the disrupter: He distinctively points out that Bush and Obama are just partisans on the opposite sides of the same governing establishment. Both from Ivy League pedigree sporting law degrees and the ability to successfully persuade; however, in actuality, both are representing the establishment — one is simply more conservative, the other more progressive.

The administrations of Bush and Obama added to the national debt, both subjected commercial America to more regulations, one invaded Iraq, the other confusingly sleepwalked and wandered about in the Middle East, allowing the very worst of the worst of Jihadist expeditiously procreate.

 Withstanding the significance of the Trump presidency, the Republican capture of legislative function and the defeat of the Democrats have been nullified by the purist within the Republican Party. The Speaker of the House did not manage the process of legislative requirements in a prudent manner; he alienated and divided, confused and befuddled, tried to force the round onto the square: he ignominiously failed. Constitutional governance was forfeited and conveyed into the abyss of what could have been. The concept of convenience underpinned by the believers of this or that have once again defeated the good of common interest. The presenters of policy attested the complicity of incompetence with the receivers; their musings of stupefied arrogance and disregarding ignorance proved destructively proportional in ineffectiveness.

I suggest, Speaker Ryan, recreate and resubmit…


12 03 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Today’s unfolding events are delivered to us consumers of information by means concurrent and distinct. These events are disproportionately varied in accord to and discordant from ideological determinatives.  In the midst of an aroused 24/7 profit motivated media focused on populating eyeballs to their particular venue, the titillation evoked by the written word has displaced the reporters’ essential: Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Reporters are novelists. When a story is analyzed as “worthy” by the reportage, but the supportive facts prove weak, even distorted, reporters dig deep to justify (within the purview of statutorily compliant deception) a joint-venture of opportuneness with contrivance and — voilà, the “worthy” story is saved.

The perfect example is this contrivance of Russia conspiring with the Trump campaign acolytes to secure Trump’s presidency: There is not a shred of evidence to sustain that charge, nonetheless the Democrats press on simply for the negative effect of such misinformation on the Trump presidency. Of course if our president could stop tweeting nonsense and stupid that might stop him from aiding and abetting his democratic enemies; of course that is obviously asking way-too-much of my president.

Seemingly, promoted by the televised drama of daily news followed by Sunday news specials, the pundit is now a celebrity. Their persuasion is a production. The production of a news show is — with notable exceptions — contingent on the network’s political ideal of the “truth.” The news show’s host usually reflects a venerable person espousing a known perspective. In other words, the viewer, embodied with progressive thought, is comforted by knowing there will be no ideological or truth-telling revelations to contradict closely held beliefs as long as they tune in to the NBC brand. If one is a holder of conservative views, the Hannity at FOX will never let them down. Generally, the viewer requires a reinforcement of preordained perspective. If however, a differing or contrary offering is presented, then in the first cause that contrary offering must be profoundly dissected. If upon dissection the differing is found truthful, then that truth must be slowly pieced into acceptance.

Such is the “slings and arrows” of self-governing. It’s a mess. However, remembering the history of this nation’s tussle with self-governance at the least, the Tories are no longer fighting their rebel brethren and the North is not facing the South at Gettysburg.  

Yes, the battle over the philosophical interpretive of what’s best for the common good is frustrating. The diverse character and differing appreciative perceptions induced by our nation’s varied social fabric is confusing. The concept of self-reliance is waning in direct proportion to our embrace of a socialistic economic system, and from my personal insight, the often out-and-out counter-cognitive of dealing with those that do not agree with me… imagine that!

Self-governing is chaos seeking a bridle…


27 02 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

It is decisively clear that the Democratic Party has enfolded into the very leftist protocols esteemed by the likes of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. Although the deal points of contention are dissimilar, the political philosophy of progressivism and its ultimate goal remain steadfast. There is however one poignant exception to the progressivism of the past: The strategy and tactics of today’s progressives, insofar as implementing and injecting progressive ideals into American culture and government is stubbornly much broader in scope, refinement, and substance.

For example, as the Republicans have elected representative majorities in local, State, Congress, and the presidency, the liberal progressives employing the political wherewithal of progressive ideals and thought have dominated (throughout) the political philosophy of academia’s unions, teachers, administrators, and students.

Bolstered by a predominance of liberal predisposition amongst the governors of academia’s managing régimes procedural discretion is the justification for denying variant thought on campus. The prevailing leadership of Academia has surreptitiously redefined the spirit and meaningfulness of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to service their political philosophy.

 Interestingly, these intellectually endowed progressives are very flexible when it comes to Constitutional interpretation. But then, I must remember they are omniscient; therefore it follows that their sense of moral righteousness predominates. As a credit to their intellectual superiority, they are able to maneuver thru the twists and turns of their own contradictions and hypocrisies, achieve reelection, and passionately endorse socialistic answers to today’s problems. Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky would be very proud of the ideals, formation of rationale, and especially the measurable influential advancement of today’s progressive movement upon America’s culture.

All was going so well for these progressives until November 8 of last year… and then came the unbelievable:  A Donald Trump electoral win! Baffled, confused, and strenuously disorientated, the progressives abruptly lost their intuitive skills. They wandered about, mumbling and rubbing their bellies, hoping to comfort their inners. After multiple attempts at blaming this, that, and the others, the progressives have settled on “résistance” as their stratégie du jour.

As a conservative, I am very pleased. If their strategy was to direct their energy toward the betterment of the nation, not necessarily abandoning their Democratic Party values, but putting indifferences aside where it was possible, well, that could siphon off some voters in the next election… Thankfully, revenge is their motivation.

As an extra bonus (for the Republicans) toward the next election, the Democrats elected DNC’s chairman Tom Perez…


12 02 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

The recent opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the perfect contextual insight into a liberal progressive mindset: For these believers, “the letter of the law” is simply a cause to interpret, modernize, and philosophically enjoin with progressive thought. The motivational thesis of the left is one of deeply felt inspirations geared to functionally realign and reconfigure the law’s original intent to suit progressive ideals. It is obvious that the goal of the 9th Circuit was to complement their contemporary socio-political “feelings;” this court’s inherent progressive ideological underpinnings are the raison d’être that provided the basis of their opinion. Their intent was NOT to consider the clear and simple literal meaning of the law — but to overtly subvert the law in favor of progressively inspired contrarianism. 

Thanks to Harry Reid, the senatorial Democrats do not have the votes nor means to stop the proceedings, so they purposefully delay and scurrilously attack each nominee until they procedurally no longer can. I assume this stratagem, costumed as a political strategy, is calculated to win back the Senate in 2018. All I observe is a frustrated, annoyed electorate confounded by such stubborn idiocy.  

The leftists (democrats and their sympathizers) are untethered from reason and rational: they are amok. Their conduct as “representatives of the people” is demeaning to the very meaningfulness of this republic. I assume the cause of such nonsensical behavior is the loss of the last election coupled with their inability to emotionally accept this outcome. The leftists have traversed from “Not my President” to a tactic of dressed in black, donning hood and mask and armed with baseball bat, ready to physically confront and destroy. This particular minority of resisters has evolved from the non-acceptance of a Trump victory to forming a posse of vigilantes.

In the interest of contentment, maybe Blue States should consider seceding from the union. However, unlike 1861, this president (with the support of Red States) would endorse and ratify the act of succession.

More than likely, the only remedy for Democrats is to lose the next election wherein they would decrease their senatorial numbers and proportionate influence; 8 or so seats ceded to the republicans should do it.

Instead of compromising with conservatives, the democrats have moved further to the political socio-economic left and with the election of Trump and the Republican control of Congress the Republicans are not in a mood to listen or facilitate Democratic concerns. There’s no Fort Sumter in the near future; however, I believe we are still one more election away from meaningful deliberations.


26 01 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

The newly inaugurated president scares the hell out of Washington’s savvy progressives. They are solidly befuddled by the undeniable fact that Americans voted for the coarse, even belligerent non-politician New Yorker. The Democratic Party and their ideological bedfellows are besieged and engulfed by the Republican victory. They are rendered benignly extraneous to current events. Delaying Trump’s nominations while striving to embarrass or humiliate the president’s nominees, is a foolish endeavor. Instead, they should make a public statement against the concerned nominees, note the reasons, give preference to the president and thereby highlighting the nominees as solely the president’s decision, vote against, and settle the matter by declaring that Democrats do not have the votes to stop the president’s selection… Next!

While the president’s team is significantly (in real measurable terms) defining the Trump agenda, the national media is relentlessly plucking at Trump’s inclination for the silly and inconsequential. Trump’s loosely construed scattered spontaneities and boisterous declarations are lit-by-fire word and phrase arrows, flung high only to indiscriminately plunge downward at Mach speed. These arrows in themselves are mostly harmless accusatorial nothings, thoughts of groundless verbosity, and flex-concoctions of thoughtless pieces and parts. Nonetheless, these nothings of meaningfulness have disoriented the media celebrities from their sense of heretofore informational normalcy.

Obsessed with questioning Trump’s team, the media is persistent. Their questions are crafty quires with the objective of manipulating the questioner into an embarrassing discovery. News reporters are enchanted with the words ‘lies’ and ‘liar’… These words are of course vectored as a damnation of the president. I assume the media will continue this form of insulting abuse throughout Trump’s presidency.  

The Republicans, as Peggy Noonan recently noted, are in a state of “hopeful apprehension.” Liberal progressives are offended by the mere presence of President Trump and Republicans are nervously assuring each other that Trump will not embarrass leadership and respect conservative ideals.

Just answer the question: When questioned, politicians of all stripes and allegiances cannot pointedly answer. Instead, they linguistically dance amongst the peripheries of the question’s meaningfulness. The dodge is obvious to all; nonetheless, more often than not the questioner is timed out, gives up, and the answerer is released from the obligation.

Well, Donald Trump answers the question. In evidence, President Trump goes well beyond just answering the question: He elaborates far and away from simply answering the question. In fact, within his answer he structures new questions. The president, consciously or not, is the master of a unique form of counter-point-redirect, designed to stylistically overwhelm and subdue the opposing perspective (or prospective) by a combination of factoid, truth, and fact.

There can be no better test of conservative ideals then now… ”time will tell.”


4 01 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

On January 20, 2017 Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as President of the United States; the Democrats and their leftist dogmatists absorbed in Cri de Cœur are enmeshed in anxiety disorder and agnostic disbelieve. Unwilling to accept the palpable, liberal progressives are relegated to wailing at the moon and comfort coupling with Hollywood celebrities.   

The media, perplexed by the citizenry’s disdain and distrust of their editorial measure, is outwardly engaged in deciphering the cause. I enunciate “outwardly engaged” because the media is cognizant that an inward vector would prove embarrassing and certainly provoke, amongst the topmost media personalities contesting perceptions of blame. These variant expressions of finger-pointing, surely, would point to any source other than inward. Finger pointing would lethally evolve, outcries of “it’s not me or my network” would dominate, scurrilous accusations would form into factoids, construed attempts to misdirect, and outright disinformation would displace any pretense of rationality.     Read the rest of this entry »


25 12 2016

Authored by William Robert Barber

Team Trump is on the march. The political-socio-cultural nuances of society, as well as the enterprising wherewithal of business in America is about to take an abrupt turn to the right. The regulatory machinations of the governing progressive über-left are being lined up for thoughtful revision or outright repeal. China and Russia are on notice: The Obama doctrine of mistaking cooperative appeasement as leadership has ended.

While Obama’s foreign policy twists and turns to the beat of “mother may I,” China and Russia have successfully been playing a very weak hand; they have appreciated the artfulness of bluffing into their strategic policies.

China is the world’s largest importer of oil. In other words, if the importation of oil was embargoed via a Saudi-USA agreement, China would be depending on Russia, Venezuela, Libya, and other odd sources to feed their navy. 15% (and rising) of Chinese exports are sold to the United States. Factually, the US purchasers generate far more profit on Chinese goods than the Chinese enjoy when selling their goods to America. The Chinese accept US$ as payment and invest such monies in US infrastructure, real estate, debt instruments, and equity. China is wholly dependent on a strong and vibrant USA. If China ever posed a military threat to the United States, we would enforce an oil embargo, initiate a naval blockade, and seize all of their US assets. 

Economically, Russia is death warmed over: As goes the price of oil so goes the cash influx needed to satisfy domestic demand. Imposed trade sanctions create trade limitations. The combination of import/export restrictions on consumer goods and vital financial services, expenditures of Russian treasury and blood onto Syria and Ukraine are not only costly; but such efforts, saving the Assad regime and enabling conflict along the Ukrainian border is of zero benefit to the Russian people.

The country is a plutocracy. Interestingly, even the wealthiest members cannot trust the Number One plutocrat. Those with wealth and power within Russia are subject to a whimsical Putin. Acting on a whim; the Number One plutocrat could confiscate their wealth, destroy their families assets, and terminate their being. For Russians with business and governing responsibilities it is understood that fear is on the one hand the glue that binds fealty and on the other the knowing that such binding of fealty is wholly tentative. The question is: Sustainability, how long before a competing plutocrat or some grievous financial necessity forces a change of control? 

Over the last eight years, Putin’s strength was in direct contrast to Obama’s weakness… that is obvious fact. A fact that on the 20th of January will abruptly and blatantly contrast the former president from the newly empowered.  

“Draining the swamp” requires definitive means. If one believes (as I do) that the degree of corruption is proportional to the size of government. That corruption is a constant and steadfast component of governing. That it is impossible, under common terms and conditions, to stop the growth of government. And that the sole alternative to impeding government growth (because growth requires money, and all government income is derived from taxes, fees, and borrowed funds), it is self–evident that to stymie the growth of government one must decrease the quantifiable of tax revenue by abating the percentage of taxable revenue.

Trump’s ability to legislate his policy through the morass of congress is as true a test of governing agility as G. Washington’s term as president. The challenges are certainly as perplexing as Gordian’s Knot: according to legend, Alexander circumvented the anticipated by pulling out his sword and cutting the knot in half. Well, a few thousand years later, let’s see how Trump responds to the multiple of knots coming his way.