Authored by William Robert Barber

Was this outburst the early signs of dementia? Did Cory Booker lose his cognitive wellbeing? Was he befuddled and confused by the hecklers or the seriousness of the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities?

No! It was Senator Booker’s intent to write, perform, and produce a one-act play, utilizing the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing as his theatrical platform. Booker wrote himself in as the heroic protagonist; vowing to risk his office so to assure that the American people realize a look-see into Booker’s idea of what documents are pertinent and essential.

Of course his script did not disclose that prior to his declaration of “I am Spartacus,” the document in question was, as requested, declassified and importantly, Senator Booker knew of its declassification. Withstanding that gauge of motivational insight, in order for a Senator to be vanquished from the Senate, a 2/3 member vote is required. Such an event is unlikely to be taken against Senator Booker or any of his Senatorial brethren. In other words, his risk of banishment from the Senate was as hollow as his Spartacus moment.

The Senator, like so many politicians, when on camera (or on the set) pursues applause. This Senator of the “Purple Chamber” is a 2020 presidential candidate. Therefore the Senator necessitates distinction from the forthcoming herd of Democratic candidates. Hence, “I am Spartacus.”

Cory Booker has all the noticeable compensations: He is good-looking, well educated, and a black American politician who knows how to advantage opportunity. He is young and brave (saved a woman in 2012 in a burning house.) One would think that he has learned the virtue of political patience. Obviously, his hurriedness to reach the office of the presidency has forced a conflation of the throwaway and pointless i.e. “I amSpartacus” line with Patrick Henry’s, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

Senator Booker however has no worries his reelection is affirmed.

Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation is the issue of concern. And as the recent hearing displayed truth and the factual is openly suppressed in favor of the Democrats’ initiative — withstanding the use of any means scurrilous or extralegal — to delay and eventually defeat his confirmation.

This is the political party that requests congressional dominance in the forthcoming election???



Authored by William Robert Barber

Aside from factional infighting and the consistent contesting of variable ideological beliefs, the apathetic vilifying of counterparties laden with askant perspectives and the President’s need to bark loudly, softly cajole, harmonize the North Korean and Russian leaders while encumbering these countries with economically hurtful sanctions.

Then of course there is the left’s “diversity” issue insisting on the absolute diversity of race and gender they enforce a mono-culture that abstains from any conversation contrary to their (tribes’) dogma of intellectual and political righteousness.

However, I think there are positives:

Everyone’s (401k) investment is appreciating. The North Koreans are not igniting rockets over Japan and the Russians have not invaded Ukraine nor the Baltic States. While spending billions in preparation for a future military conflict, China is still negotiating and Iran consumed with spending time and resources on misguided theocratically dedicated visions of Shite dominance has lost all pragmatic sensibility.

So despite our domestic disunity, this nation-state is, for now, just fine.

However, the people of the nation are suffering from bureaucratic overload. The bureaucracy that manages/governs this nation has suppressed this land of laws not men into willful obedience to the rules of deceitful discretion.

In particular the Federal bureaucracy, at will, abrogates, countermands, slow-walks, reshuffles, and misdirects. Over the last century congress had forsaken, limited, and restrained its rightful responsibilities and authority in favor of a nebulous bureaucracy. The agencies and departments created by Congress have grown beyond anyone’s ability to manage, oversee, or contain. The ethos of bureaucratic discernment has stymied Congress’ constitutional obligation to, by oversight, superintend. 

A governing entity within a governing entity is the reality of today’s definition of our nation’s democratic republic.

The Gallian brethren of 3rd century Rome overtly threatened the institutions and persons of the enlightened. Today, in America Gallian-like tribes are a consistent threat to peace and order; however, the coup de grâce is from within. This nation’s bureaucratic Byzantine is an ungovernable tortuous maelstrom, most recently and notoriously highlighted by the DOJ and FBI resistance to Congressional oversight.

Liberal progressives and their Marxist sympathizers have captured the nation’s state-sponsored educational system and have transformed the once self-reliant, individualistically inclined mindset of the existential American into a ready-to-compromise, easy-to-influence cadre of think-alike devotees.



Authored by William Robert Barber

I am “disgusted beyond endurance,” utilizing (Merriam-Webster’s definition of fed-up) when pundits and politicians mimic Little Richards’, “slippin’ and slidin’ peepin’ and hidin’” as the standard response to an inconvenient or difficult question.

Revealingly, political commentators consider the practice of such deceptive behavior as smartly clever, shrewd, even professional; they note that because a person is cunningly deceptive, he or she is therefore a good politician. The acceptance of this silver-tongued behavior fits in snugly with the liberal-progressive belief that the result justifies the means.

Seemingly, all (the talking heads) with an agenda (in other words everyone) are actors. Repeating lines written by others rather than themselves they assertively proffer the prevailing debating point or regress into a politically motivated ideological schema. These actors are the politically inclined playwright’s protagonists. Armed with emotional inflections, pathos if required, and likelihood reflection they dramatize, enunciate, and perform.

Possibly, the probability is — and could be — the key prelude to a newsworthy discussion. It is as if the daily news requires the creativity of a novelist’s prerogative or suffer the effects of featureless boredom. The production cast of a news show includes statecraft wonks, representatives of the formerly empowered and the empowered of whatever. Prompted by the “greater good,” licensed officers of the court, and the pedigreed, all guests, passionately contribute variances of embellishment, misdirection, and factoids in favor of showbiz diversion.

“Influence! How to” is the propagandist prevailing question and the sought-after answers involve the investment of millions of dollars and thousands of working hours. The result of all the dollars and hours is the creation of pleasant, soft to the ear, and comfort to one’s spirit words phrased to uplift. Intermingled between the uplifting are timely placed threats of doomsday for the disbelieving and unreceptive. Recited by the young and the beautiful, the message is augmented by the sage-like appeal of a white-haired good-looker with a pleasant voice. This ‘how to influence’ approach enforces the adage that judgment focuses on the illusion presented — not reality.

As to the topic of Trump, where illusion meets reality — plus emotional inflictions and likelihood reflections dominate 90 % of the Trump coverage. Of course the arch rival of Trump is Trump: He cannot get out of his way. One for sure about our President: he is completely, with no hesitation, transparent.



Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

If accepted as viable — Information initiates action…

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

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

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

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

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


Authored by William Robert Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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