Why Bother With Electoral Votes?

With just a few days to go to that magical November 4th date when the president-elect is announced, I have to admit even I am getting annoyed by the media worship of Obama. For some time I had attributed it to the left being completely fed up with the conservatives but it occurred to me that something's awry.

We have a great election system in the US and we can thank the founding fathers for having the sense to protect us from the folly that is populism by instituting the electoral college system. Yet it is evident that populism has begun the overtake the senses of our electoral college to the point where it is no longer possible to identify whether a Democratic congressman or senator, and some Republican ones, are heeding the call of populism or are holding fast to republican ideals this country so long depended upon.

What makes populism dangerous is the fact that crowds can be swayed by emotion, as evident by the very huge crowds Obama draws, yet very few people in those crowds understand what Obama's policies mean to America. In addition, the very people who are charged with constraining the powers of the executive branch are suffering from the same fever of populism that has taken ill the general public. Not only are Republicans and conservatives in danger of losing the presidency, but they risk losing the ability to rein in any executive radicalism which in the current world will certainly prove to be detrimental to our legitimacy as the last bastion of trure democracy. In the event that Obama wins, the electoral college will fail to protect us from populism. One only has to to look at Venezuela and Spain as of late. It is no longer sufficient to hope that this is the United States and that it would not be possible for us to completely disregard the warnings of our founding fathers, we've got something coming alright.

For the past few days more information on Obama's ideology has surfaced further reinforcing the notion that he harbors socialistic ideology. Although in substance there may be nothing wrong with his belief that socialism is better than capitalism or market economics, there is a reason why Americans have continually rejected socialism in the past. Furthermore, if the tape in possession of the LA Times indeed portrays what it is purported to, then a close ally of the US in the Middle East is (i.e. Israel) is certain to see a dramatic drop in support should Obama win, irregardless of what he professes to the media.


It is the media -leftist in general- that has given Obama the tools of victory. If information is key to victory in this day and age then the leftist media has dropped the ball. Often times we hear the media complaining about suppression of the freedom of speech by the government, yet many media outlets are engaging in near suppression and have completely ignored the background of Obama - yet more evidence of populism. The major topic of the past few days has been taxation and health care. We hear from Obama supporters how it is so wonderful that his tax plan will spread the wealth from those who make a decent income to those who don't make any. I am all for charity but I detest any notion that the government should tell me how I dole out that charity. If the liberals are so inclined to redistribute income then let them do it without forcing the rest of us, who already think that a progressive tax is an idiotic idea, to our own devices. The main counter-argument to Obama's blunder of wealth redistribution is that we already have a progressive tax system so a little bit more from a larger number of tax payers is no big deal. Hell, many Republican presidents including Reagan and Bush have endorsed such a tax system. However, rather than start a fight in the Congress and among the people on the merits of flat taxes or otherwise, the Obama tax plan increases the ratio of which those with incomes above a certain cutoff marginal tax rate will pay even more. Combining this increase in the marginal tax with the myriad of increases in other transfer payment programs, such as the recruiting of a "teacher army" in the words of Obama to the payment of credits to those who make poverty wages and students who are not employed or otherwise make poverty wages, one is left to wonder if Obama will not be forced to lower that cutoff salary range of $250,000 to generate more government income. The worst of it all will be when Obama announces that he will be dipping into defense spending to pay for all of his welfare programs. All of this assuming that he wins. I am still holding out hope that McCain will win. He must, for our country's sake.

Hmmmm, Interesting

Oh wow, this warranted a press release? Who the hell would've known if they received a solicitation from the McCain camp? What, did McCain's campaign request a signature for the letter? Why are the Russian's involving themselves in American politics?

Permanent Mission
of the Russian Federation
to the United Nations

136 East 67th Street
New York, NY 10065
Fax: (212) 628-0252
517-7427

STATEMENT

20 October 2008

ON FUNDRAISING LETTER FROM

JOHN MCCAIN ELECTION CAMPAIGN

We have received a letter from Senator John McCain requesting financial contribution to his Presidential campaign.

In this connection we would like to reiterate that Russian officials, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations or the Russian Government do not finance political activity in foreign countries.

Link: http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/press/201008eprel.htm

Take 2: Is the Obama/Biden Ticket Dangerous for America?

The president of the United States of America is perceived by many as a position of responsible power and representative of democratic ideals. Thing is, during the past 8 years many people see the presidency of the US as autocratic and irresponsible, often times they quote the war on Iraq and global terror as the primary source of those claims. In light of Sen. Biden's recent comments Americans should feel concerned about what it would mean for all of us if Obama is elected. As Sen. Biden puts it:

"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.” he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy..."

In essence, Biden is predicting what is almost always true of every newly elected president, including incumbent ones. After all it is a very logical move by anyone who wishes to stress out and annoy the American public, especially during a time when interest in the news and international affairs is high. Sen. Biden may very well be correct in his prediction, history can attest to that, however the question should be raised not whether the new president, whomever he may be, is tested, but whether that president has the right experience to deal effectively with these "tests."

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama does not have the required experience to deal with our enemies, nor is he guaranteed to work well with our allies. On the other hand, Sen. McCain has the necessary, and in my opinion required, experience to deal with any "tests" our enemies or allies will pose. In itself an Obama presidency does not afford us a strong position on the war on terror. Even with the support of Gen. Powell behind him, Sen. Obama will not be able to compensate for the lack of experience. Executive experience counts, so does experience in the military or tenure in the Senate for that matter.

So, in all probability an Obama presidency, by his own VP-candidate's admission, will involve the country in an international confrontation. What about when McCain wins? Will our enemies, and our allies, try to test his mettle? No, John McCain is not a wild card, nor is he an unknown.

I was very disappointed that Gen. Powel endorsed Sen. Obama rather than John McCain. However, I understand why he did it, but I hope it doesn't backfire on him. I understand that the Bush administration set him up in effect by pushing him to publicly state to the UN that weapons of mass destruction were being stockpiled by Saddam Hussein. Whether there's any merit at all to this hypothesis is irrelevant because, even allowing for the fact that Gen. Powell is not bitter about being used by the Bush administration to start a war, it makes no sense to me why he would break from Republicans by supporting a very left-leaning candidate? I have no explanation for it, even if the Obama camp had been pressing him for his endorsement since 8 months ago. Besides, didn't Gen. Powell, and Secretary Rice, make history as the first African-Americans to hold the position of Secretary of State. Why is the presidency suddenly a milestone, and his own accomplishments are not? Whatever the reason behind his decision, I hold a deep admiration for Gen. Powell. I have never agreed with the Bush administration's decision to marginalize and eventually push Gen. Powell out of his position. It is my opinion that Gen. Powell represented us very well within the Bush administration, albeit he opposed many of the Bush decisions - at least from a personal level. Still, I am speechless about his decision. I think it is the wrong move, especially since the Democrats and the liberals who support them are liable to mess everything up and eventually allow for the Republicans and the conservatives to once again take the reins of this country.

Which leads me to this: Obama needs to be very careful about how he acts in the Oval Office. I am positing here that it will be very difficult for him to ignore the radical elements of the Democratic party, making it impossible for him to gravitate towards the center. Unfortunately he will be stuck in a catch 22 mode, unable to commit to any difficult decisions that just might break with the radical liberal elements. If he ignores, circumvents, or opposes these fragments of the Democratic party, they will make his life very difficult and will jeopardize his bid for a second term. No wonder Biden's second warning today included the call to the Obama supporters to brace for difficult decisions and try to influence whomever they can to support the Obama presidency as such.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but isn't this uncertainty in the capabilities, or the direction Obama will take us, dangerous for America? In the event that Obama gets elected we will have a lame duck president on our hands. How will our enemies, again, and our allies, perceive him? You poke enough at us and you're liable to find a weak point in our posture. Rather than discourage such potential behavior from our enemies by electing a strong president McCain, Americans are on the verge of doing just the opposite. And for what? The promise of the promised land of social equality (so unsuccessful in Europe and the rest of the world)?

I will laugh or cry on election day. We'll see which mood I'm in.

US Tax System Explained in Beer

A Freeper pointed me to this comment which I found to be the best explanation of the tax burden of the wealthy:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! "Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.
'I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! "That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
"Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man ( the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

From: http://www.ktok.com/pages/mullinsinthemorning.html

The Rich Vote Republican, So Why is Warren Buffet Supporting Obama?

I was sitting in an Oklahoma diner listening to the Texas - Sooners game, which Texas won, thank you very much - all the while debating the merits of a McCain/Palin White House with a friend of mine who "claims" to be an independent voter. I swear, these independent voters are something special aren't they?

Our verbal sparring was all over the place, from foreign policy to economic plans. It took me a while to convince him not to base his vote on the rhetoric he hears from either campaign, the major TV and print media, but rather to see things objectively and argue logically and not emotionally. He agreed. Thus I proceeded to break down Obama's flawed economic and social policies and related them to socialist ones. I also agreed that McCain had made a mistake by voting for the bailout plan, but we conceded that for both candidates their vote was driven by necessary politics. Nor do I think that McCain's economic plan is great, but at least he won't be increasing taxes on my wife and I.

I was doing fine until he asked me a question that stumped me: "If McCain's tax policies favor the middle class, businesses, investors, and the rich, why is it that Warren Buffet has endorsed Barack Obama?" I had to be honest and I told him that I had no idea why, but there must be a simple explanation, which as it turn out it was rather simple, void of any complex economic theory and logic. So I looked it up.

All I had to do was perform a simple Google search with the search terms: "rich vote obama". Apparently the rich are divided into two categories: those who are rich with a net worth of $1 million to $10 million, and the ultra- or super-rich, with net worths greater than $30 million. During the 2004 presidential race Elite Traveler Magazine contracted a survey firm to poll a sample of the rich and the ultra-rich to determine how the rich vote. According to that survey, those who were considered rich ($1 million - $10 million) largely said they would vote with their wallets, and agreed that Bush would be better for their finances. However, 90.7% of those who were considered super-rich (> $10 million) agreed that Bush would be better for the economy and their finances, but nevertheless they chose to vote for Kerry. The surveyor's conclusion was:

"The findings clearly demonstrate that the Elite Affluent are so wealthy, other issues are more important to them in selecting their country's leader then their personal financial situations," Prince said. "At the same time, the majority of the Upper Affluent, who are rich but still have financial constraints, are principally voting with their pocketbooks."

Fast forward to 2008 and the current presidential election. Will the rich and the super-rich voting patterns change or remain the same as 2004? A Wall Street Journal post explores the same issue citing the same surveying firm as in the 2004 example to determine if there is a difference in voting pattern in the rich and super-rich voters. Out of a sample of 493 families, the survey found yet again that 66% of those with a net worth of greater than $30 million would vote for Obama, while only 15% of those with net worth of $1 million to $10 million would support Obama. According to the opinion piece, the major reason given for the voting trends was taxes. Those who were only considered rich (< $10 million) cited taxes as the primary reason why they would support John McCain, with social issues and the environment being secondary and tertiary reasons. Among the super-rich, tax policy came last in their consideration for supporting either candidate and placed social and environmental issues at the top of their decision to support Obama.

The super-rich are very indifferent to taxes simply because of the size of their net worth where taxes do not make a big enough of a dent. Also, they are more likely to employ tax attorneys, structure their assets in tax-deferred, trusts, or other tax burden reduction mechanisms. Because either candidates tax policy does not affect the super-rich financially, they are free to chose a candidate based on other policies, such as social reform and the environment. In other words, Warren Buffet could care less about how the government taxes him.

What does this tell us? Well, it goes to show that although an individual is wealthy, he or she does not necessarily make better decisions than the rest of us. They are just as conflicted as the rest of us. Unfortunately, we look up to them because we want to be as successful as them, and since they represent a small percentage of the population but hold the largest amount of wealth, their political support of a candidate counts. With the tax burden inconsequential to him, Warren Buffet supports Obama because of the perception that Obama's economic policies are more favorable to the poor and lower middle class. My guess is this is another form of charity on the part of the super-rich.

I like what the author of the Op-Ed piece in the WSJ had to say:

But the survey offers an important insight into the effect of wealth on personal politics. Perhaps the old saying should be changed to: If you’re ultrawealthy and conservative you have no heart; if you’re wealthy and liberal, you have no brain.

True Enough: This is the Best One-Liner Ever!

So, I' m pretty bored and my eyes hurt from reading the news so much. It's not that politics is the only thing I think of, but it makes things interesting especially during an election season. While Stumbling around I came along this:



or click here.

God, I needed a good laugh.

The Socialism of Obama-nomics

From FoxNews:

Obama to Plumber: My Plan Will 'Spread the Wealth Around'

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around" -- a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a "socialist" at the Republican's rallies.

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's remarks drew fresh criticism on the blogosphere that the Illinois senator favors a breed of wealth redistribution -- as well as a rebuke from the McCain campaign.

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

...

Lately we've heard quite a few liberal pundits accuse Republicans and conservatives in general of falsely accusing Obama and Dem leaders Pelosi and Reed of pushing a socialist agenda. Their clamoring for fairness arose from a n angry comment by a McCain town hall attendee who expressed his anger at whom he, not John McCain, called socialists, referring to Obama, Pelosi, and Reed, and the Dem controlled Congress in general. Good for that ballsy gentleman, who expressed anger at what so many of us feel is a wrong step toward financial recovery that is this bailout plan, albeit pushed by a Republican president, and the other $150 billion in handout money Pelosi wants us to be further indebted to.

Why shouldn't ordinary Americans think that Obam, Pelosi, and Reed are pushing a socialist agenda? Many liberals, far left and to the center, think that wealth redistribution is a great idea, that it would help prop up so many millions of Americans who are down on their financial luck, never mind you that in order for this wealth redistribution to work it would burden the backs of so many of us, who through hard work, good and bad luck, have made choices that allow us to enjoy some prosperity. I ask, why don't these liberals - rather numerous in number - open up their own pocket books and redistribute their own wealth if they choose to?

Why are we as a nation afraid to admit the fact that we have a presidential candidate, who by his own admission would like to "spread wealth around," holds fast to Socialist ideals? Let's see what we have in Obama: firstly, there's his association with Bill Ayers who, terrorist or not, espouses Marxist ideals; secondly, Obama has worked with the quasi-socialist organization ACORN; thirdly, has proposed a tax plan that offers 95% of Americans a tax refund, 45% of whom do not even pay taxes; fourthly, admits to the public at one of his rallies that he is for wealth redistribution; and finally, promises to involve these community organizing committees in policy decisions, akin to action committees so familiar during labor and communist movements.

I am certain his campaign will try to spin Obama's latest blunder. After all the rhetoric of his campaign, there is finally proof, from his own admission, of what an Obama presidency would entail. There are plenty of people in the US who think that socialism is far better than a market economy. Yet, there is a reason why socialism wasn't fully embraced by the American people. Sure, we have experimented in the past, especially during the Great Depression, but Americans rejected socialism as ineffective for the economy, unfair and unequal in social matters, and restrictive of the very freedoms that have made us the envy of the world.

Our financial markets, and all investors in general, should fear an Obama presidency, especially when Congress is poised to win Dem majorities to defeat any Republican filibustering. Liberals and Dems say we conservatives and Republicans are fear mongers, racists, divisive, and just plain ignorant, because we cling to guns, religion, and the same politicians who do not care for change. I would rather enjoy the misery of an economic depression rather than lose my self respect, my faith, and my freedom. Woe to those sheep who readily go to the wolves!

Government Can Fix It All, So It Claims!

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Friday the U.S. government was moving aggressively to address the financial markets crisis, but he acknowledged that anxiety was feeding on itself as stocks continued to plunge.

"The United States government is acting; we will continue to act to resolve this crisis and restore stability to our markets," Bush said in an eight-and-a-half minute statement in the White House Rose Garden aimed at calming Americans' growing fears.

The credit markets have remained largely frozen despite coordinated interest rate cuts by central banks and government intervention to safeguard deposits and provide additional liquidity to lenders.

Stock markets have continued to fall dramatically which has drained the value of retirement accounts and limited the ability of companies to raise capital, stoking fears of a global recession and potentially a depression.

...

I had an opportunity to interview a SEC lawyer during a seminar at my college and it struck me as odd that he was clamoring for less regulation, especially since he works for a regulatory agency. When I pressed him on the possible future investigations that may come as a result of lax market rules, he defended the SEC by noting that it was the Democrats who imposed strict regulatory rules on the financial markets, most of which were ineffective in design and cost quite a bit of money. Also, he kept insisting that the bailout would be good for the economy, but he kept defending the ridiculous notion that government should not inhibit markets. As if $820 billion is not an inhibitor of free markets in and on itself. I'm sure that once the Congressional hearings begin anew, we will see how well Pelosi and other democrats represent us in this regard. My guess is that heads may start rolling when this crisis is all but done, however we will see an increase in the overt corruption in the Senate and Congress, which my guess is, judging by the latest polling, will skew heavily liberal. I wonder if Pelosi and Reed will be willing enough to investigate and punish those who were charged with the oversight of Freddie and Fannie in Congress. After all, it was these institutions which encouraged our current calamity. It's doubtful that would happen, therefore corruption in a Democratic government will jump, thanks to the snowball effect of "you tell on me, I tell on you."

It's a real shame McCain voted for this bailout bill. I don't say this lightly, but one has to see the dangers of what may come in the future. Consider an Obama/Biden presidency, which is looking more likely than not, and a Democratic controlled Congress. We've allowed our current government to increase it's control on the economy past Keynesian levels, even dangerously close to controlling huge quantities of financials, which weak as they are, can give an Obama White House immense control over our financial institutions. The real blame truthfully should rest with these giant financial powerhouses, which although love to mitigate risk by utilizing complex mathematics and exotic vehicles to structure trades, they cannot foresee the risk of being indebted to the government. Our political and financial leaders have caused trillions of dollars to hemorrhage out of 401(k) and other retirement plans. This issue is compounded further when you understand that 50% of all working individuals in the US are invested in the stock market in one form or another.

One thing bothers me deeply with the Obama/Biden presidency and a government with increased financial control of free markets, and that is taxation. This bailout bill has the potential of real returns but it can also be used as a club Obama can yield to pressure corporations, upper class and middle class individuals to swallow the increase in taxes. This leverage over our financial institutions is poison to our economy and no self respecting, logical, red-blooded citizen should accept. Given the likelihood of victory, Republicans and conservatives in general should be weary of the future. Unfortunately it we can thank president Bush's bailout plan for giving the Democrats a stepping stone from which they can ascend to complete control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. We can also blame a divided Republican/Conservative base which for years has stagnated and has not represented a big enough of a challenge to the liberals. So, I consider this current mess we are in, including the potential win of the left, as a wake-up call to Republicans and conservatives who prefer a limited intrusion of government into our daily lives, our faith, and our pocketbooks.

Yet, still I foster the hope that McCain/Palin will ascend to the presidency, although they would have to contend with an contentious Congress. At least, there's still hope that the Obama/Biden campaign will fall flat on its face and lose. There's always hope. Otherwise what can we say to our descendants that we lost hope in freedom? I don't think so.

A Democratic Victory This Year Could Be Good For Republicans

From Marketwatch.com:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - When the polls say Senate seats in Republican bastions such as Alaska, Kentucky and Texas are vulnerable to a Democratic takeover in November, you know it's the Democrats' year. The Democrats, who now have 51 seats in the 100-member Senate (counting independents), are beginning to dream of an almost unattainable goal: Reaching the magical 60 votes needed to exercise absolute control of the chamber.

...

Losing this election may actually be good news for Republicans. With the possibility of a "filibuster-proof" Senate controlled by Democrats, every decision made, economic, political, social, and military, will be scrutinized by people in the US and elsewhere.

In relation to the current "stimulus" plan President Bush may be remembered as a genius for allowing Paulson to scare the American people into financing the bailout of ditressed financial institutions. That is, assuming our markets don't lose too much, and our economy improves. Unfortunately for the Democrats, in this scenario, the benefits of success would only apply to a Republican president leaving them out in the cold. But, if the bailout paln fails, our markets collapse, and our economy tanks, it will be the Democrats who will bear the blame for approving the bailout, not the US president, nor the Republican minority.

My point will become clear when we see Democrats take the reins of our economy and country completely. We will suffer economically and socially, the impacts of which will be felt worldwide. It is no longer sufficient to claim to be a Republican, or an independent without first realizing the dangers liberals pose during tough times. I don't know about you, but just about the only good thing to come out of a liberal controlled US is a heavy decline in immigration. After all, if there are no opportunities in a country which used to be the ultimate destination for so many imigrants, and a symbol of free men, what hope do we have for the future prosperity of our children and our the tradition of liberty spanning over two hundred years?

Is the Obama/Biden Ticket is Dangerous for America

It constantly amazes me that the Obama/Biden ticket do not get hammered hard by the GOP, and Republicans in general for their political leanings, especially when we need to call Obama out on his liberal and darn right socialist ideology, in light of his official website's call for a protest in Gov. Palin's event in Dallas today. Sen. Obama's message, and Sen. Biden's at times, is full of terms referring to his progressive, community organizing, taxing the rich and upper middle class, fair, equality, etc., only stopping short of using socialist terminology such as proletariat, bourgeoisie, and revolution. Note that whenever he speaks of change I cannot help it but to me it sounds as if he is saying revolution.

Although there are several distinctions between liberals and socialists they commonly agree on two things, of which Obama claims to hold true: freedom and organization (as in a body that acts on behalf and for benefit of others). Borrowing from the great political economist Friedrich Hayek, these two principles couldn't be more polar of opposites. For one, freedom doesn't care for organization (note Obama was a community organizer) because organization will, by its very hierarchical and anti-individualistic nature, will stifle freedom. Thus, organization, so beloved by socialists and liberals, diminishes individualism, the very thing we as Americans and free people hold dear, and it always tends to minimize freedom.

Which brings me to another point regarding the danger the Obama/Biden ticket brings. When you look closer to what a community organizer does, as was Obama who constantly reminds us, note that he holds fast to the basic principles of socialism. This is also reflected in his proposed tax policy, which is a socialist policy if you closely look. Now, it is not enough to say that this is a small matter thus it can be overlooked, but doing so is dangerous because he would apply these community organizer (socialist) principles on a national scale. At least in the Senate both, Obama and Biden, are checked by 98 others, and given his rhetoric the liberals who are now supporting him will eventually recognize the error of their support. Note that liberalism is more democratic than socialism and liberals for the most part do not always agree with the socialist progressive ideology.

And this brings me to my final point: Obama's obsession with change, or what socialists call progressivism. This term is also favored by liberals, as I have mentioned above, but leftist radicals love it just the same. As an ideology, progressivism is dangerous in that it proposes a Utopian vision and according to Obama only those with socialist tendencies can be trusted to carry it out - the rest of America, which clings to it's religion and guns, is to be reformed.

So why is progressivism in Obama's context dangerous? Looking back in history during the French Revolution, the progressives then with the motto of "Liberty, Brotherhood, Equality" -which sound familiar- caused major damage to the middle class and aristocracy, not to mention tens of thousands of dead who would not fall in line. But those who hurt most then were the poor and the disenfranchised the progressives were claiming to help. How about the progressive movement of the Bolsheviks during Lenin's October Revolution? Yet again the poor and everyone in general suffered by the actions of these progressives, holding Russia and half the world under a communist boot guised as socialism. Furthermore, the National Socialist movement in Germany, commonly referred to as Nazism, claimed to be progressive, and at one point Hitler claimed both his movement and Marxism have similarities and bear little distinction. Again, progressives as such caused millions of lives to be lost.

But I must warn that I am not convinced that Obama harbors such apocalyptic visions for our country, but consider for a moment what we, as Americans, can lose in terms of freedom. Consider the notion that if Obama wins, we will have a "democratic" President, liberal/quasi-socialist controlled House and Senate, and anti-constitutional Supreme Court and federal justices. What will we lose if that is the case? How about the fact that Obama's federal government will usurp the powers of the states, provide a socialist government, and eventually reduce our freedoms.

This is the reason why I used the word "dangerous" to refer to a possible Obama presidency.