5 01 2018

Authored by William Robert Barber

Does any objective clear-eyed person believe that Russian interference in our nation’s elections threatens our democracy? Is it not the common practice (for decades) of competitive nation states to seek, through clandestine efforts, election outcomes that favor their particular policy interpretive? Is it reasonable to discern that Russian surrogates spending thousands of dollars on social media could subvert our democracy?

The answer is no, yes, and no.

The Democrats and their brethren in the liberal-minded media have created a dragon. This particular dragon does not fly or exhale fire. It did however, according to Democrats, collude with the Russian government to elect Donald Trump president. No one has seen this dragon. However the conjecture is that by Knight Mueller, sword and shield in hand, patrolling through a series of deep caves the colluding dragon’s existence is forthcoming.

The Democrats desperately require an alternative to the Russian narrative and at the same time need to defend the FBI’s wrong doings as well as the obvious prejudice of Robert Mueller’s investigation. Of course the upcoming budget talks, DACA, immigration, chain migration, and the visa lottery system aggregate into multiple issues of contention from within and outside the party.

On the horizon are the mid-terms, an election that will either validate President Trump’s 2016 election or credit to the liberal-progressive resistance cause for a continuum of resistance.

Because of the hatred for the president I understand there’s fire in the belly of Democrats. This enthusiasm will result in a voter turnout that could overwhelm the Republican voter. Is there a liberal progressive wave election in the works? Will the Republican voters roll over and submit to this enthusiasm, paving the way for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker?

President Trump must re-establish his meaningfulness, validate his policies, and vindicate his moral standing; he can only achieve this if he, in a dominant manner, wins the next election.



20 12 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Legislation on the tax bill, pass or fail, is in its last stages of debate. The pros and cons of the issue boil down to what the government is going to keep to sustain the governing bureaucracy, how much will be directed to the qualified people to ease their burden, and what amount is allowed to vest in the pockets of the people.

The contesting of issues amongst the politicians no longer relies upon party affiliation but upon differing ideological beliefs and mores. Conservatives advocate a diminutive government; liberals want to defer all socio-economic concerns to governmental wonks, therefore, a larger government is inherent.

Progressives are practicing socialists that reject the title of socialist as well as the functional reality of their advocacy. However, as demonstrated by President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary, progressives function in a world of fanciful make-believe. Reality, no matter the empirical evidence of its existence, is ignored; my favorite foreign policy example is North Korea.

Class warfare is a favorite topic of progressives because it ensures degrees of chaos and contentiousness.  Interestingly, it is commonly known and sensibly understood that the few always have more in material wealth than the many. The dichotomies between the have less and those that have more are historically blatant. Nonetheless, in the modern world all socio-economic schemes inclusive of socio-equalitarianism and egalitarianism in general results (for the populous) in the loss of individual liberty, personal freedoms, and the establishment of a Kleptocracy managed by armed Kleptocrats.   

The consequence of utilizing taxation as the means of wealth redistribution took form in 1910, wherein, the 16th amendment to the constitution. “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”  Those that have (the few) acknowledged that socio-economic order requires the distribution of their wealth and have agreed that government taxation is the better arbitrator. What they did not count on was the government’s ability to tax excessively. Imagine in 1910 the tax was limited to 6%.

Premised on the egalitarian determinant that those who earn or have more pay more than those who have less is purposely designed to eliminate any taxable obligation to any person earning less than a certain annual amount. The sum of this system is (for those that earn below the taxable minimum) to disenfranchise this, earning-less class, of the citizens from any concern over any political ramifications. Unless threatened by a change in the progressive tax system why vote? Why participate in electing the ruling class?

The true power of a government rests not only in power to tax but also in the wherewithal to pick and choose on the disbursement of tax revenue. For reasons documented and implied, lawful and extralegal, Congress, overwhelmed by the weight of its distorted process, autocratic dysfunction and statutorily compliant corruption has confederated into warring pieces and parts.

However, I do believe if the United States Congress legislates a significant decrease in corporate taxes the nation wins.


20 11 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Ever since Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower had allowed Stalin to destroy Berlin, the United States have stumbled, hesitated, blundered, meandered, and with anxious helter-shelter expended trillions of dollars and unknowing amounts of blood in pursuit of indefinable obscurities. It is inexplicable to me that our leaders, graduates of the most exquisite schools, commanding excellent strategic resources and often enjoying tactical superiority have misspent treasure and wasted so much blood. This phenomenon is a profound mystery…

But then, look at our Republicans: What does it actually take to lower personal income taxes for every American? Apparently, having the majority in Congress and a Republican in the White House is not enough.

I’d love to know the rationale of not giving a tax break to the “so-called” rich and the super rich. Is it an accepted unwritten rule that upon attaining “rich”, the rich forfeit equal treatment under the tax code? And the (by the feds) designated poor, why is it they pay no, none, zero taxes on income? In truth, when a citizen pays no personal income tax, the government has just disenfranchised that citizen. The citizen has no motivation to participate in the government’s governance when one has no “skin in the game”; electoral concerns are inconsequential.

A new cultural phenomenon has initially eclipsed, then overwhelmed and surpassed the culture of post-WWII. The evolving acceptance of a variance of what is truthful has shattered our mores. Our traditional trust in self-reliance, individualism, meritocracy, and societal interdependence is challenged as archaic by the liberals. The progressive liberal has successfully offered the State represented by an omniscient government bristling with experts as the secular, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” As a result of such offerings, fifty percent of Americans will trade and have traded their liberty and personal freedom for a/the pretense of financial surety.

In the present media environment, Muslims are to be appreciated, Christians at best tolerated, African Americans acknowledged as persecuted (because they’re black), white people are the problem, and Hispanics (if illegal) must be called “undocumented” and eventually granted citizenship. All of this is prompted and promoted by the liberal progressive media whose news gathering criteria seems focused on the division and celebrating chaos. And we are worried about Russian influence on our elections?!?

The truth is no longer the result of evidentiary deduction. Logic is often superceded by popular sentiment. Within the encyclopedic dogma of progressivism the truth is a preordained determinative wherein the result is the a priori and the means irrelevant. The preceding is the same political philosophy and tactical wherewithal of Vladimir Lenin and Saul Alinsky.

Will the Republican pass tax legislation? Will they lose Alabama to a liberal progressive? Governing under Trump is a thriller…


7 10 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Divergent opinions usually result in alienation and dissension; withstanding, disagreements short of bloodletting evidence a thriving democracy. Pluralism necessitates disputes for differing ideological and societal conviction. The moral right or wrong of a political opinion is not the a priori of concern. However, the argument, no matter the resolve, is obligated to discern (by principles of logical deduction) the empirical from theoretical.

Every side of a particular argument is charged to engender artful persuasion in pursuit of consensus. The erudite performance or reasonableness of one’s persuasion is often insufficient. It is common for persuasion to fall short of consensus.

Before and after the forming of the republic, dissension amongst the citizenry was prevalent. If one searches for a difference between the then and the now, the differing resides in the growth of technology and literateness of the present population. Both, technology and literacy are a necessary precursor to the creation of a robustly profitable 24-hour news cycle. 

However, in the present political climate, the motivating emphasis of the liberal media is vengeance. Progressives and socialist have coined these efforts the “resistance.” The mission of the “resistance” is to depose President Trump and replace Republicans (the majority) with liberal Democrats. For members of the “resistance,” the means to achieve this end is justified by the result.

For example, Congress and its investigative committees are striving to find evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump administration. After nine months of intense investigative work, there is no evidence of collusion. Nonetheless, for political purposes, the pursuit of what does not exist continues and will continue until the next presidential election. Interestingly, the Democratic Party’s charge that the Russians are the perpetrators of initiating electoral chaos when in fact evidence of undermining electoral confidence points directly to the Democrats. It is the Democrats that by factoid or outright deception seek to undermine the last presidential election.

Seemingly, Americans have formed ideological defenses.  Entrenched by predetermined political beliefs, conservatives and liberals are comfortable behind their parapets. Just as Hamilton could not sway Jefferson or Washington understand the need for political parties, conflicts of and between ideological perspectives is a continuum that has no end. Contrariness is a nécessité of free-thinking and a fundamental of a democratic republic.


30 09 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

North Korea exists as an existential nuclear threat today because President Eisenhower wanted to end the war in Korea — not win it. The desire to end the war instead of winning is the same naivety that was the basis of surrendering Eastern Europe to the Russians: Eisenhower was one of many leaders who believed that peace was an attainable goal.

There is a proliferation of nuclear weaponry today because this nation and its allies refused to enforce a nonproliferation policy militarily. “Live and let live” is an ideal that simply does not apply to nation states.

If the adversary is irrational, rational elucidation is ineffectual. When theocratic dogma haloes a tyrant, urbane susceptibilities are deduced by the tyrant as weakness. The sole result of striving to find compromise and common ground under such a situation is wholly unproductive. Kim Jong-un believes that America will not allow thousands of South Koreans to die as the price for disjointing his regime. He will not shut down and dismantle his nuclear arsenal without a fight. Persuasion may win out once we evacuate Seoul, create a naval embargo, and position our air and warships off his shore to seek dialogue. Kim Jong-un may be persuaded to move his nuclear arsenal to China and wait out for another opportunity to continue his quest to dominate Korea — or he will aim his missiles and artillery and fire.

A Prussian General, Carl Von Clausewitz, once declared that war is a continuation of politics or diplomacy. Successful diplomacy requires the willingness and wherewithal to apply overwhelming martial force. Diplomacy void of martial force would be as lethal as President Obama’s red line in Syria.

Warfare is inevitable and unremitting. Violent conflict is a mainstay of human experience. The invention of the wheel and sail disabled distance as a safeguard of invasion. The success of husbandry motivated neighbors to monetize violence. The use of violence as a means to accumulate proved so effective, the means of violence were mechanically enhanced and tactically sophisticated. Nation states have embraced (and presently are embracing) banditry and gangster(ism) as the raison d’être of their economic wherewithal. This imposition of banditry and gangster(ism) is the cultural ecosystem of humankind yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Peace defined as an absence of war is an ideal void of empirical legitimacy. Essentially, the concept of peace as a viable, attainable reality is a dangerous fabrication, a mindless fantasy.

If the previous paragraph is true, why educate the populus to the contrary? Why is it that nation states espouse peace as their ultimate foreign policy goal? The foundation of this answer resides within a common predisposition: The unwillingness to accept violent conflict as a persistent commonality; this unwillingness to accept reality creates vulnerability — which results in Pearl Harbor and 9/11; war requires victory. Bloodletting does not necessitate a rational cause; history demonstrates that no cause is required to kill a fellow human — or millions of humans.

No transaction of any kind will successfully transact without the vital assurance of security. America’s choice is simple: Either we are the most powerful nation on earth, or we are not. To not be the most powerful nation on earth means that Russia or China will be.

Kim Jong-un will never consider demilitarizing his murderous regime. This man is a believer in a very deceptive myth: that of being Kim Jong-un.  


26 08 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Trumpian polemics, as expressed by the principal, is mostly an impulsive creation of variant manifestations of ‘feelings’ delivered on an “at the ready” basis to an audience of “baited breath.” The reasoning (given by the president) is that he is a counter-puncher. In other words, the president’s message is schoolyard simple: if you mess with me I will mess with you — only harder.  Hmm… when charged with governing, does that tactic work?

The on-going cannon fodder the president willfully provides to his enemies are astoundingly counter-productive. Nevertheless, the president per twitter insists and via his speeches persists in delivering a consistent volume of contentious self-destructive verbiage.

The president, if ever challenged by the media to play Russian roulette, would load his revolver with three live rounds instead of one.  

Seemingly, the president is not only impulsive — he is an indifferent meandering cavalier solely disinterested in the polemic’s effectiveness; as if vectored by the direction of the wind, he disregards and discounts. He forgets the most scurrilous of his remarks as easily as water flows off a duck’s back.  For the president, a factoid is very close to the confusing truth. The president tosses the factoid and the truth casually, possibly imprudently, rhetorically exchanging one for the other, free of forethought or concern.

On the other hand, the nonsensical emphasis and re-emphasis by the media on the meaningless, the hyperbolic regurgitation of an infinitesimal faux pas, delivered with a continuum of sangfroid absolutism and Schadenfreude intent, is void of truthfulness resulting (for the recipient) in a tiresome sense of boredom. Peggy Lee said it best in 1969 in the song, “Is that all there is?”

The media is obsessed with the narcotic inducing president; they require a regular fix. Besides, the president and his free-wheeling style does all the work for them. A pundit need not consult a mystic to decipher President Trump’s meanings. The president is transparently honest. Nothing metaphysical or false-hearted with the doings of President Trump; the man, often to his detriment, calls a spade a spade to friend and foe alike; even when he is mistaken, even when he needs that particular spade to aid and assist his agenda. The president is not loyal to the Republican Party — he is loyal to his agenda and the country.

The President’s flaws overflow and overlap; he is spontaneous, impetuous, and often thwarts his objectives. At times his narcissism provokes a careless dimwittedness of knowing who he is, where he is, and the expectations put upon the “leader of the free world.”

Nonetheless, this president of ours is honest of heart and mind. Unlike a great many politicians that are his peer and those that preceded President Trump right, wrong, or somewhere in between, this is the Hillary Clinton alternative that preserved individual liberty, saved the nation from socialism, and regenerated capitalism to its rightful place.

 At this time and under these circumstances, this president is what this nation requires.

THE PREDATOR, homo sapiens

13 08 2017

Authored by William Robert Barber

Throughout the two hundred thousand years of evolving into the most intelligent of beings humankind has accepted violent conflict as a constant. The predator homo sapiens, for reasons explicable and inexplicable, with premeditated intent or haphazard disregard, purposefully designs and executes the wherewithal to kill, maim, and torture its fellow humans.

Ostensibly, a culture of violence is the basis of homo sapiens behavior.

Interestingly, the Latin meaning of homo sapiens (“wise man”), when measured in practice, is counter intuitive: A wise man would not purposefully design the means to kill millions of its own; however, killing millions of its own is exactly the history of homo sapiens.

I submit that as water, food, and shelter are primal to survival and therefore an essential to life, seemingly violent conflict is an inevitable absolute of human behavior. Humankind’s voluminously documented propensity for violence is factual; therefore, one must consider violence an undeniable mainstay of homo sapiens behavior.

Nonetheless, our nation’s foreign policy cavalierly denies the undeniable and proceeds to endorse a foreign policy of baseless theoretical assumptions, quixotic inclinations, and “wish it were so” predeterminations. It is this idealistic wrongheadedness that prompts the present North Korean crisis. General Eisenhower made the initial mistake: When seeking the presidency, he pledged to end the war in Korea. Ending the war in Korea did not mean victory — it meant enabling the client State of China; it meant the unwitting support of a gangster regime armed with nuclear weapons.

The strategic concept of “mutually assured destruction” has been a reality since the 1950’s. This concept was (in my estimation) a default strategy. The sensible strategy would have been to disallow — by force of arms — any nation’s interest in developing or buying the necessary supplements to creating a nuclear bomb.

As a decisive point of historical reference President Truman was wrong in restricting General MacArthur’s military initiatives, and because of Truman’s fear of broadening the UN police action in Korea, today, millions of lives are at risk of inhalation.

When General Eisenhower, the supreme commander of allied forces, allowed the Russian Army to take Berlin, the Yalta Conference’s academic and theoretical evolved into reality. Stalin, the former ally of Hitler, was delightfully amused by the childlike gullibility of Western leadership. Eisenhower found solace in accepting “the orders of the day”; he abandoned deductive logic in favor of cognitively inadequate assumptions and doomed Eastern Europe to communist dominance.

American leadership has squandered the blood of their fellow Americans and imprudently misspent hundreds of billions of the nation’s treasury in the pursuit of what does not exist: Peace. Peace does not exist because humankind is not rational nor reasonable. The world is not a romantic comedy full of love and kindness. The good guys do not always win.

Goodness is by its innate nature the less of evil’s more. Because of its preponderance evil will always besiege good. North Korea is evil. This evil, no matter the cost, must be destroyed.

John Donne said it best: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent.” To whom does the bell toll? “It tolls for thee.” America is militarily the strongest of the Western democracies. When compared to China, Putin’s Russia, and North Korea, America is as close to a moral “good,” as a nation state governed by humans might achieve. In the interest of John Donne’s declaration, America must rid the world of the North Korean menace… NOW!