Like it or Not – Since 9/11 Bush’s Policy Has Stymied all Attempts by Terrorist Towards Attacking the U.S.

Senator Obama’s Simple Presumption
Authored by: William Robert Barber

Those of the liberal persuasion equates reasonable, rational, and sensible with the essential characteristics for the implementation of a sound and successful foreign policy; liberals for sure, but, particularly, those liberals on the far left of the American political spectrum, assume problems solvable via the utility of logic and deductive application. The assumption is that the rouge nation’s leadership appreciates, understands and is indeed purely seeking some sort of common ground methodology, possibly, a clarification of policy is the only distance to be marched, or maybe something simple like a US military deployment, carelessly made, that has not been understood by these rouge states and as soon all of these encumbrances on friendship have been cleared up, peace in our time will prevail. Pulling our forces out of Iraq even Afghanistan maybe the proper policy for our enemies to reconcile with the American people-surely, if such a pullout took place the Europeans would embrace us as friends.

Liberals believe that the World-Wide distribution of American military might is not a protective shield; but, a provocation of imperialistic remembering; a clearly demonstrated willingness of America to use physical force to enforce our foreign policy or worst…to enforce our sense of righteousness on an unwilling international community. Accordingly, if only we Americans would change our government’s policy these rouge nations would light a candle and the current behavior of unremitting hostility (that our present policy promotes) would abruptly end.

History evidences quite the contrary of these closely held liberal beliefs; nevertheless, such lack of historical precedence, does not sway those committed to a leftist political agenda to consider the merits of an alternative prospective or even to rethink the success of existing policy. Instead, the provocateurs of change, with no need of an evidentiary tangible, intent on servicing a contrarian prospective for the sake of some indefinable contrarian objective are promoting a foreign policy with lots of carrots and no stick.

Senator Obama founds his international policy on the simple presumption that today’s policy is a failure; therefore, let’s try something new; maybe, a new differing policy creates a successful result. However rouge nations may indeed be the antitheses of reasonable, rational, and sensible; they maybe driven by a diabolical need to destroy America and all things considered American influenced. I wonder in that atmosphere of hostile disregard how would the Obama negotiations respond?

Since 9/11, President Bush’s policy has stymied all attempts by terrorist towards attacking the nation; his policy has protected the flow of oil out of the gulf; no matter the growing strength of Iran’s limited partnership in the Middle East all the partners understand their limitations. Israel is assured of protection evidenced by the physical presence of US forces and America is wining the hearts and minds of the unwilling.

Diplomatic solutions to issues of angst between America and its counter parties are enhanced by the look-and-see surety of American power. Less the awesome power of American force of arms, for Americans, as well as, all those democratically inspired peoples of the world, the alternative to American power is domination by Russia or China; any who doubt my conclusive, read a few chapters of world history.

The American Way of Life is at Risk

War, Peace and Oil
Authored by: William Robert Barber

I have read of it in various publications, had the merits of it explained to me by many distinguished speakers, have been induced to believe that it is of common acceptance, and for the better part of my early life on earth I actually believed that the essence was doable:

That doable was that peace was indeed a realistic goal; that this nation’s policy, in scope and function, both domestic and international should be to establish peace. I thought that peace was universally desirous and was a shared commonality for all of humankind. But, with the passing of years, as with all things child-like, I put such beliefs aside and dealt with the world as it is rather than as I wish it was.

It has been suggested by documenters of history that the reason 5,000 people gathered for the first time in a confined space was to kill each other. The globe is benchmarked by monuments, statues, commemorative inscriptions, and graveyards of those who fell in battle. There are poems, prose, myths, songs, and stories of those who fought others of humankind’s kindred with the intent of one killing the other. There is no doubt of man’s violent nature toward their fellow man.

I believe that humankind is a multipurpose creator and perpetrator of an overtly combative nature; I believe that the behavior of humankind is intrinsically embedded with innate hostility; as a consequence, I do not believe that peace between nations is a natural condition; indeed, all nation states are leery of any hands down trustful engagement. In other words, for the administrators of this nation’s foreign policy to suggest that peace is an attainable goal of even relative permanency is absurd, illusionary even dangerous. Every nation will serve its interest and for the industrialized nation’s, energy is its food and water.

History evidences that peace is no more than a momentary lull connecting a perpetual continuum of violent strikes. Rarely does the momentary lull of peace extend pass a generation of time; therefore, because of the clear evidence of history one need not suffer another surprise attack in order to relearn the self-evident consistencies of history. One cannot outrun the natural inclinations of humankind and elephants will not grow wings and fly. The rule of law is enforcement dependant. Human satisfaction has a short memory and an insatiable appetite for more. Greed and stupid are the superior genes within the mix of common human characteristics and their predominance’s have little to do with societies’ interest or insistence on either the abatement of ignorance or the advancement of enlightenment. Withstanding all of the niceties of living the ‘good life,’ even the most generous, liberal, and naive of Americans realize that the wheels that go round and round will stop if there is no energy; convincingly, one also recognizes that without a steady supply of affordable energy the good life could come to a not so pretty an end.

The world and its affairs do not utilize or operate from a moral platform nor do the perpetuators of worldly affairs utilize reason, rationality or sensibility as its basis for negotiating trade agreements, adhering to affirmed treaties or agreements, or doing one thing, all the while, confirming that they are doing another.

I do believe that contrary to the interest of this nation state, offensive actions are in development, on going, and will be perpetrated against this nation into perpetuity. It is happening for instance by oil producing nations as I write. Middle Eastern countries specifically have, ‘weapon enabled’ its oil to serve as an economic missile capable of influencing the general cost of all services; therefore, the effect of weapon enabled oil will at a minimum, lower the net of discretionary common income and deliver, at will, at least short term economic destabilization.

The Government of the United States response to such a strategic debilitating offensive is to NOT drill for our domestic oil reserve NOT initiate nuclear energy alternatives, to NOT negotiate directly with sources of oil depositories, but instead, to pay the money and bark at the moon.

These actions by those who have the oil reserves are not peaceful gestures, they are aggressive gestures; if the restricting of global energy resources are destabilizing this nation; are not those actions as dangerous as an overtly hostile act?

If you are an oil producing nation and as such have formed a cartel to monopolize and manipulate the price of oil with the intent of destabilizing America and its allies; is that not a overtly violent act? If the cartel knows the amount of oil that will hit the global market on a given day, week, or month would they not only make the money on the price of a barrel but also manipulate the options market and in so doing artificially force up the barrel of oil by speculating on the options market?

60% of your oil is IMPORTED costing you $1,320,000,000 EVERY DAY! –   Source:

Overtly and covertly this nation is at war; today’s trading partner could very well be tomorrow’s enemy; it is a very confusing world…nevertheless, one item is not so confusing, without the oil there is no energy without the energy the American way of life is at risk. Congress cannot simply sit on its hands…

Political Media Dance

When Will They Ever Learn

Authored by: William Robert Barber

Events, international and national, serious very concerning events; many that rises to the level of possibilities portentous and foreboding; events that threaten our way of life, even our very existence as an open society, these events, although, as real and forecast able as the setting of the sun, remain, in the mind of the many, a subject of disregarded and indifference.

One such national event: Political parties have evolved into huge money raising machines; an entire business infrastructure is now in place to elect their particular slate of candidates. Media embraces the entire concept of elections as sharks to blood; millions upon millions of dollars are delivered to media by political parties. There is a common belief evidenced by empirical deduction that the candidate with the most money to spend in a political campaign has the upper hand on the election outcome.

Events, metaphorically like the burning of Rome, continue while the political parties and their sponsored protagonist orchestrate the media dance to the rhythm of emotionally stimulating sound bytes, misinformation, disinformation, uncontestable lies, and this relatively new phenomenon prompted by media-advisors to the electoral contester of delivering serialized nonsensical distortions of the factual by the utility of post-stupid speech clarification. The contextual essence factor of these post-stupid clarifications is to say almost anything other than the truth. Their adage must be that anything but the truth will set one free; a very President Clinton-like approach to dealing with what is truthful.

This is the age of weapons of mass destruction. A WMD attack is not a forthcoming HBO special; such an attack is well within the realm of reality. We actually do have people, groups, institutions, nation states, irrational fanatics who support a religiously motivated intensely dedicated number of militant Muslims who have declared war on America and Americans. Of course this paragraph does not apply to former President Carter whose mindfulness lives somewhere between Never-Never-Land and Obama’s foreign policy.

Excessive taxation is often synonymous with erroneous taxation either or both descriptions impair individual freedom, empowers government, and is counter intuitive to the sensibility of defining government as a righteous utility of the people. As excessive taxation is implemented those taxed resist, maneuver, and redirect their investments in a differing opportunity; after all, it is a global business environment. Hence and therefore, less tax, in the quantitative is actually collected.

Nevertheless, and despite the arguments to the contrary elected officials of the accepted political party colors red and blue are focused on getting into office or staying in elected office. The consequence is that the difficult issues that prompt the events of deep concern even those of a foreboding factual will not be meaningfully addressed. Because of this political system reality, the citizen voter is a dismissive resource; the government is too strong, too empowered, the appointed non elected bureaucracy is entrenched and the citizen voter has its head deeply impeded in the sand. The people are divided between those who live as if in a Pepsi Cola commercial and those who produce the commercial.

As with all serious redirections of effort and concern an event will prompt the citizen to lift its head and smell the gun powder…naturally, for many the prompting event will be too late.

Part II The Growing Majority of Baffled Voters

The voter’s attention to detail is critical
Authored by: William Robert Barber
Part II of most recent article

Because of the inherent complexities, the multiplicity of issues, and the Byzantine-like labyrinths and proceedings of Congress and its supporting infrastructure the challenge of communicating the essence-the-meaning of any political, economic, or foreign policy argument to the voter resides within the nation’s media, its pundits, political partisans-nonpartisans and editorials of in-the-know journalist. Thus for the voter, the problem of forming a sensible criteria and underwriting agenda to judge the veracity of a particular candidate’s policy or position begins by a process of listening, reading, and questioning.

Naturally, and withstanding all of the informational impute, the ideologues, the fanatics, the believers, will never be swayed by the evidence to their preconceived contrary; they are attentive only to the evidence that is aligned with their predetermined suppositions. By means of Machiavellian; by means deceptive; by dance or direct aim the goal of winning is all that truly matters to those branded to their cause. Therefore, the politician’s real audience of persuade is directed to between 33-40 percent of the electorate; this percentage I believe makes up what is known as the great undecided and uncommitted.

In the interest of attempting to match and appease; political harbingers expend more than a modest amount of time contemplating the attributes, ingredients, and distinctive chemistry of today’s great undecided and uncommitted. The question for the partisan professional as to gaining the vote of the undecided and uncommitted is quite simple: What issue, what rumor, what innuendo, what opponent’s misstep will cedes advantage to their candidate?

The election of November 2008 will be the most important election since the election of Thomas Jefferson. From economics to health care, foreign policy to education, taxation to immigration and trade the political parties are distinctively different. The voter’s attention to detail is critical. Their vote will count; they truly will receive the government they deserve.

The Growing Majority of Baffled Voters

The Voter Will Bequeaths Upon Itself
Authored by: William Robert Barber
Part 1 of Many

One eligible citizen; one vote, is the law of the land in America. Note the law does not distinguish between the institutionally highly educated and the less educated, ignorant or enlightened, the literate from the illiterate, the lawless from the law-a-biding; every eligible citizen has the right to vote. Thus for those aspirating for public office every vote, and voter requires attention of and to their concerns. The candidates are required to present themselves for consideration by the electorate so to explain their policy, management of problems, answer questions, and publicly debate issues with other contenders. For the contender this is a statutory whetting process wherein those who seek public office must earn the blessings of the electorate by gaining the citizen’s vote.

The processes of elections define the political concept of power entrenched with the people; it is the voter who in common cause with their fellow citizens form the American ideal of a democratically founded governing system. The truthfulness of this definition is apparent when one grades the fairness measure to the nation’s laws, diligence of its regulatory agencies, integrity of its legislators, the efficiency of its bureaucrats, openness of its judicial proceedings, taxation policy, the adherence to the constitution of its courts, and the apolitical behavior of its military. Clearly, because of the electoral process, in America, the electorate will consistently get the government it deserves.

To some measurable degree there exists a growing majority of voters who are baffled, confused, and perplexed by the sheer size and managerial weight of the national government. Additionally, because of the enormity and complexity of international, as well as, national issues; the average voter is either not able to comprehend, is not interested or not willing to spend the time to understand the details of governing/managing the multiplicity of issues of critical national importance.

There is an empirically founded assumption that in local (city & county) elections the voter is more cognitive of details and policy issues verses national elections. One reason is the obvious indifference caused by distance; the other is that most citizens have only a cursory understanding of the national government’s complex and increasingly ambiguous structure, functionaries, or operating gadgetry. Therefore, the nominee easily escapes the requirements for specificity; they speak in generalities, fanciful quips that enhance and decorate the exuberantly rhetorical context, but, are intentionally void of objective substance. They for the most part need only point to the popular, the simple, the ruse of lights and mirrors.

In their defense, these national nominees are hampered as well by the largeness of government, the inherent governmental bureaucracy that engine the operations of governing and the requirement of raising money for political campaigns. These nominees are speaking to an electorate, in the majority, that blatantly lack the vocabulary so to comprehend the workings of federal governing; an electorate who have only media source understanding of national/international events; coupling this limitation of awareness by the voters it is of small wonder why the nominee communicates with sound bites.

Those nominees, seeking election to the highest public office in the land is beholding to an electorate with a scanty, basic, only nominal understanding of governmental resources, methods and practices.

The challenge of communicating the essence of an political, economic, or foreign policy argument to the voters reside within the nation’s media, pundits, and editorials.

The furtherance of this theme and title are forthcoming…