We are at the point where there are about 3 workers for every social security recipient. Or, at least we would be if there were enough jobs right now. It doesn't take a brilliant economist to realize that we need more workers, or fewer SS recipients, or each worker has to pay more, or each recipient has to get less, or we will have to borrow to pay SS.

So if we are Barack Obama and his lackeys what we do is mount a public relations campaign that positions Social Security payments as "entitlements," which somehow has taken on an ugly connotation even though it is a perfectly good word. (You are entitled to the money in your bank account.)

There are two kinds of entitlements -- those that people paid for and those that they didn't. Social Security is a "paid for" example. 

Next we tell the public that we are going to cut entitlements. Many of our supporters will shout: "Hoo-rah. Nobody should get something from the government that I'm not getting."

The entitlements that are cut won't include the "unpaid for" entitlements, like welfare programs for people who have sex irresponsibily or who are in the United States illegally. These are liberal supporters.

The entitlements that will get cut include payments to people who had no choice but to place their faith in the government by paying mandatory FICA taxes or getting fined or jailed as the alternatives.

How might we reduce Social Security payments? Here are the ways:

(1)   Pay the average recipient less, perhaps based on need.

The unfairness of this is that many of the people who need Social Security payments less are the people who, because of higher earnings over more years, paid more into it. 

Are not the people who paid more into the system entitled to more out of the system? The answer is no -- if one agrees with Karl Marx's economic philosophy of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The answer is yes if we value the quaint American cultural value of "fairness" as it was defined before it started being spun semantically to sell essentially unfair programs and concepts by liberals.

(2)   Reduce the number of Social Security recipients.

One way to do this is to require people to wait to draw Social Security until they get older than 65. There are two potential flaws in this strategy:

·         One flaw is that this will keep older people in the labor force longer, thus reducing job opportunities for younger people.

·         The other flaw is that as the skills of older workers become less in demand there is a risk of an earnings gap between the cessation of employment income and the start of Social Security income. Individuals would have to plan financially to bridge this gap. This seems unlikely to be feasible except under greatly improved economic conditions.

The second way to reduce the number of Social Security recipients is to shorten their lives by withholding health care at a certain point in aging or health decline. 

The plans drawn up by our government for socialized medicine (euphemistically called by the more palatable name of universal health care) provide for the costs of individual medical treatment funding to be weighed against the individual benefits of treatment in terms of years remaining of quality life.

In raw economic terms think of an old car. If it needs a water pump you might fix it to keep it running. If it needs a transmission you might decide to junk it. Who knows what expensive repair might be needed next?  Besides, the old hack doesn't run as well as the newer models like those bearing the ACORN marquis.

There would be no Social Security problems if seniors were Redwood trees or polar bears. Liberals would be scrambling to preserve them.

Chuck

We try to fix being broke by spending.

We plan to spend more in the future although we lack the money to deal with the present.

We deplore the personal borrowing that got us this economic mess while the government takes us all into huge debt.
 
We try to stimulate the economy by buying things that we don't need right now.  People defer such purchases, but not our government.

We try to fathom a democratic administration that is like a 5-year-old in a candy store and wants some of everything right now or will throw a tantrum.

We tolerate a government that operates behind closed doors when we were promised transparency.

We countenance a government where our representatives do not do each other the courtesy, and us the proper service, of hearing each others' views, and recognizing the importance in a democratic republic of doing so.  What do they get paid for if not for debating on our behalf?

We try to increase American stature in the world by giving away power.

We let non-citizen minorities who shouldn't be here dictate how we should live because some think they "deserve" the rights of citizens.

We make it possible for non-citizen minorities to vote for our leaders while at the same time establishing their own national and ethnic closed societies and not speaking the language of our sovereign nation.

We accommodate minorities by speaking their language when they should learn to speak ours.

We clamor for rights but do not recognize that there are commensurate responsibilities.

We give more power to minorities than to the majority, unless the minority is 60 million American citizens who wanted a different president and the preservation of free enterprise.

We think that having money is institutionalized and that people who got it wrongly or by stupidity should be kept wealthy.

We think failure should be rewarded.

We think that people who make money by creating value and jobs for society should be taxed heavily so they can contribute more to society and pay for the keep of those who create no value.

We consider denying 2nd Amendment rights to law-abiding American citizens because Mexicans who shouldn't cross our borders shoot each other.

We think another gun law will make us safe.

We think guns pull their own triggers.

This was written in response to an e-mail from a friend concerning Obama’s economic plans. The e-mail asked: “What’s wrong with this guy?”

I preface this by saying that I’m in the age group where culturally we have been taught to respect the President of the United States, even if he is not the person we would have chosen.

Those of us who have been in the military respect the President as the Commander In Chief, and if we don’t like the orders we have been taught to suck it up and obey them anyway.

Trying to answer the question posed in the e-mail forced me to seek a logical answer and I reached a conclusion that I wish I could avoid. Obama is either a complete blunderer or we don’t understand him because of our disbelief in what is taking place in America. I think it is the latter.

Hope your ears aren’t too delicate at this moment.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS GUY?

Unfortunately, there is nothing wrong with this guy -- other than being a narcissistic arrogant egomaniac far left lying communist front man for a bunch of socialists, that is.

When he was elected I was one of those who said "all right.  He's our President.  I don’t like it but let's see what he can do." 

I'm seeing it.  I'm not liking it.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE SCORE CHANGE THE GAME

Let's stop judging him by our conventional American values.  Every time I try to do so I am amazed and disgusted. His game is not our game. He doesn’t keep score the way we keep score.

As a simple example, conventional values say lying is bad, honesty is good.  That’s why we swear in court witnesses.

But socialists and communists believe the end justifies the means, the end of course being socialism and/or communism.  In their perverted morality lying is good if it helps bring about the change they want.  Except for cover-ups, Obama's campaign was lie after lie -- his funding, associates, beliefs, religion, and agenda.

HOW COULD AMERICA HAVE DONE THIS?

What’s still difficult to understand is why the American people were so sucked in by this guy.  This is one premise: It is a statistical fact that half the population has a below average I.Q...  This gave Obama a lot of votes right there – people who voted on feeling, and racial affinity, and to make a social statement about themselves, and who did not vote on reason.  Add the "intellectual elite" who often have high I.Q. s but believe in socialism and there you have Obama's victory.  With the war and the economy it was easy to sell "hope and change," and let the public supply the definitions of the hope and change it would like to have and thought he would bring.

Members of the intellectual elite are atheists for the convenient reason that if they believed in God they would have to admit that they are not the supreme intelligence in the universe.

Race played a part. If black voters had voted white in the same proportion that white voters voted black, it is a mathematical fact that McCain would have won in a close race.

If Obama had run with the same amount of funding as McCain, McCain would have won. Obama spent approximately $7.39 per vote and McCain spent $5.78 per vote. If Obama had spent $347 million, the same as McCain, McCain would have won 56% to 44%. Obama paid $17.50 for each vote that contributed to his margin of victory. We needn’t remind ourselves that we have not been told who funded this, but the “usual suspects” include George Soros, and Middle Eastern and other foreign interests. The Obama forces bought the White House.

I think there were a substantial number of supporters who were enamored of Obama and then used current events like the war and the economy to rationalize their support rather than making a cognitive choice of candidates. Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg from Obama and then pulled out all the stops to find reasons to support Obama.

ACORNS ARE NUTS

And then there were the young people, many too young to vote, who were trained in political support of Obama and then turned loose to try to register voters for him and gather support. These ACORN youngsters, funded with our tax dollars, worked the university campus where I teach, and I talked with them. Their arguments and beliefs were straight, plain socialism: “Is it fair that one person has a better house than another?” This is where it is at. These are the minds that are being shaped. I didn’t notice any difference in the ethnicity of these youngsters and the armed robbers who come onto campus. The ACORN people, already known for their extreme liberal beliefs and practices, are going to be conducting the 2010 Census for us.

KEEP THEM OFF-GUARD

Dealing with Obama is like playing poker with a dealer who keeps changing the rules to his advantage, during which you are unable to quit the game, and you know that his intent is to own you in the end.  Every day it seems that the deck gets stacked a little more in his favor, and every day sees new cards being added.

FREE ENTERPRISE? WHAT’S THAT?

We must realize that Obama’s concept of service to America is to socialize it. That’s what drives him and is all he understands. He doesn’t understand free enterprise. There is no documentation that he has ever even run a lemonade stand. 

His influencers have been socialists and communists.   He, himself, says that he sought them out in college. His early rearing imbued him with pro-socialist teachings. He wants to bring socialism to America -- socialism with the power of choice denied to citizens and seized by the socialist elite, of which he is one.  Socialism, with all the enslavement it will bring to the American people.

Socialism brings order to society. Not the order that results from free people pursuing their self-interests but the order imposed by edicts of the ruling class of socialists.

Obama tries to sell his agenda by not calling it "socialism" and by telling us his programs will solve our problems.   His programs are socialistic.

America’s problems gave Obama and his socialist allies their opportunity. We should not expect that they will attempt any solutions other than socialism.

GOV’T MAINTENANCE OF YOUR BOD.

With a government-run health system we will be dependent on the government for medical treatment.

Obama has already installed one of his supporters as head of the FDA, which he says must be overhauled.  The news media reports her qualifications but not her beliefs. So, Obama’s going to control the approval of pharmaceuticals, and by doing this he will also control the pharmaceutical companies on which he's already placed blame for high health care costs. Read this: “Play ball or your new super drug, Obamacillin, won’t get approved. Make the cost to our socialized medicine program 25 cents a dose, even if you have to cut corners to do it. You can sell it on the open market at $250 per dose.” Instructions for Obamacillin: “Administer the shot in the patient’s posterior. If the patient is old, administer the 5 cent placebo.”

He is planning to take away the rights of medical people to act according to their conscience.  Without belaboring it this means doctors and hospitals will not be able to refuse to perform abortions, or to refuse to care for the elderly except as dictated by the government. If medical providers want to get paid by the government they will have to serve patients in the manner approved by the government.  And that means spending no more on an individual’s treatment than the government decides is warranted by the number of years the patient might be expected to benefit by that treatment. More to the point of what this means is that one is more likely to die of untreated pneumonia the older one gets.

TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED

One by one, the building blocks of socialism are falling into place.  A socialistic government needs to control the size of society to provide goods and services for its members.  When the fruits of society are divvied up "to each according to his need" one would be well advised to make sure his need is not inordinately great. You better make sure you are politically connected for this assessment to be favorable to you.

FURTHER OBAMA’S AGENDA – DIE

Why would Obama want to take care of the health of elders anyhow?  He is better off if elders all die.  Besides eliminating substantial health care and Social Security expense, that would get rid of a lot of conservative opposition from a lot of people who remember a better America than what it is becoming.  The ACORN youngsters are his future. He's already shown his lack of regard for human life by his abortion stance and plans for medical care.

AS THE TWIG IS BENT…

Look for socialism of education at the national level, even though distribution will have to remain local.  You can bet that teachers will have to chant the party mantra to have jobs, and that there will be centralized control of curricula by the Federal Government.

EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!

Look for the wimpy, sniveling left-wing MSM to get bailed out of their financial mess by the government, meaning us, all the while wrapping themselves in the same phony cloak of unbiased servitude to "the public's right to know" that they have worn shamelessly through the 2008 Presidential campaigns.  The First Amendment will be a joke and the MSM will become a bunch of little Pravdas. They won’t have far to go to get there.

BLOODY NOSE PERSUASION

Look for union elections to be conducted by hand vote, with all that implies.  "Hey Joe.  Me an da boys didn't see your hand up in da union vote.  Some of us wanna talk to you about dat outside in da alley."  Obama will run the union leaders who will, in turn, run the unions.  Again, if you want to work you vill support the party, yesssss comrade?

TASMANIAN DEVIL INSTINCT

You say this is gloom and doom talk and it can’t happen? It's happening.  But right now it's like a three dimensional chess game where the shape of the game is unclear except mainly to those who are moving the pieces. As more pieces are played the outcome becomes more assured. The outcome is socialism.

America didn't elect a stupid man.  America elected a brilliant orator fronting for forces unknown to us, who sprinkled glittering fairy dust all over the numb minds of whole segments of American society, and who is, in fact, a coldly calculating ruthless socialist.  His mask has slipped many times and we caught glimpses of what he is.  Even David Brooks, the liberal New York Times op-ed writer saw it and identified it early in the campaign. We should stop expecting something different. The New York Times itself suggested during the campaign that Obama may be ruthless enough to deal with Putin.

What Obama can’t supply for himself is on his teleprompter, written by fellow travelers, no doubt.

Socialism is in every fiber of Obama's being.  He can no more stop ramming through his socialist agenda than a Tasmanian Devil can go on a fast.

CONSERVATIVE HOPE FOR CHANGE

I have feelings of hope for change.  I think Obama and his liberal followers may blow it so badly that we will see a major turnaround in the Congressional elections 2 years from now.  I still have faith in the American people if not in the present government. In 2012 I think we will see Newt take him on and win.  McCain is a war hero and a fine man.  I think Newt is the more capable warrior when it comes to Obama's brand of bare-knuckled politics.  I think right now Newt is sizing up his adversary. Note that Newt, while expressing views, is not presently establishing a voting record that can be attacked. The last president who got elected had little voting record to attack also. Now if the Supreme Court justices can stay well…

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BULWARK

I think the Second Amendment may be Obama's stumbling block.  On one hand he would like to disarm America.  There is no question about that.  Gun owners are in the minority.  But so are the anti-gun people.  And the people in the middle can be influenced.  If Obama comes after guns some hard-line groups may rebel and things could get ugly.  There are paramilitary organizations in many states that train regularly and can get mighty upset. These are conservatives who believe in individual rights and freedoms.

Obama's chance to take the last measure of control will come if there is civil disturbance of any magnitude. That will be his excuse for his National Civilian Police Force, martial law, the disarming of citizens, and all-out war – on the American people.

The Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh, was a member of a paramilitary militia group.  What he did was an unpardonable atrocity.  I mention this only to show that some people will take violent action.

NOBODY SAID LIFE WAS FAIR

McVeigh was a bomber who killed people, took his medicine like a man, was tried, executed and cremated.  He did not try to stay alive on appeals.

Bill Ayers is another person who took violent action. He was a bomber and he, or his Weathermen organization, or both, killed people.  He's now a professor of education at the University of Chicago, a friend and adviser to the president of the United States, and never received so much as a jail sentence.  Another dissimilarity between the two is that Ayers had a rich father who had the money to get him off the hook.  The similarities are that both were anarchists, both used home-made explosives, neither used firearms, and neither repented his actions.

CROSSED PURPOSES

If we judge Obama on our goal of preserving the fundamental principles and freedoms of the American way of life, it is reasonable to question his intelligence.

If we evaluate Obama on what he must do to enslave America to socialism, his actions and policies make perfect sense. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we will understand him.

A heuristic approach to making decisions might be applied when there is no decision algorithm that can be applied to lead to an expected outcome. It is in short, an attempt to reach conclusions that may or may not be sound, but must be made because of the absence of a reliable decision algorithm.

If a person does not understand diamonds, the heuristic that higher price equates to higher quality in diamonds of the same size leads to a conclusion that may or may not be correct in a given application.

You don’t touch a hot stove because as a kid you learned the algorithm that the outcome will be getting burned. 

In your first experience with a hot stove as a child you may have tried a heuristic approach and learned by trial and error that you would get burned.

This groundwork leads to a short discussion of government heurocracy. The Obama campaign promised us economic solutions as if the algorithms to restore the economy were known to him and results were guaranteed if only he were elected to office so he could save us all by pressing the right buttons. Now we hear that it is going to take much longer to fix and the cost is high and unknown.

The Democrats did not have an algorithm that would lead to predictably desirable results. It does not exist. If it did there would be no disagreement among economists.

If the Democrats thought they had the magic medicine they were foolish. If they thought they might have it but weren’t sure they should not have raised false expectations.

There was hope all right – the hope they might get lucky and something would work.

But let’s tell it like it is. Having a solution was not the priority. Getting elected was.

Many situations in life don’t have predictable outcomes. War is one, yet Obama and his cohorts, who are now taking a heuristic approach to fixing the economy are the same people who decried the lack of predictability of events in the Iraq war. A student of the subject knows that it was specifically the lack of predictability that prompted McNamara and his WWII whiz kids in the development of the branch of probability known as game theory. One wartime application of this was to estimate how many bombers had to take off for a given number to get through the flak and the Messerschmitts to deliver their payloads.

So now we are being led by a government of clueless heurocrats who convinced the American people that they had the answers and could solve the problems, but who, in reality wanted to take a shot at making their own guesses and trial and error attempts at solutions.

There is one huge difference between America’s present economic situation and the preceding hot stove example. The Washington heurocrats will try to find economic solutions through heuristics. It will be the American people who get burned.

During the campaign Barack Obama got piqued because of criticism of his wife.  Her past comments, including the infamous "proud for the first time," and racially-tainted college thesis, were tip-offs to her true feelings and beliefs.  These "put her in play."

Now, if she takes an active part in pitching government policies she will put herself in play again and President Obama may again complain.  As before, he will have no right to.

Unlike Sarah Palin, who was viciously attacked for actions of her family that were not of her own, Michelle Obama was, and will be, criticized because of her own actions.

It's not going the way you thought it would, is it? You can't just open your mouth and have every American swoon as did your liberal supporters inside and outside of the main stream media.

You blame Congressional Republicans for holding America back from your vision of economic salvation by not falling in lockstep with you on your march toward socialism. 

Their ears are deaf to your soaring rhetoric because socialism is an anathema to them. They know they can’t solve a problem by creating a bigger problem. I pray the Republicans stand their ground.

You promised clean programs, not laden with pork. Your party's economic stimulus program is packed with pork, and that's one source of partisan conflict. Cognizant voters understand what's happening. Democrats got elected and now it's time to start paying back debts and making good on promises to special interest groups.

You promised that you could improve relations with Iran. Ahmadinejad responded to your overtures by launching a satellite to demonstrate his rocket power. Rockets plus nuclear capability makes Iran an international threat. What are you going to do about this before it’s too late? The time is now.

You promised change in government, yet you recycle the same people from earlier Democratic administrations. This is not change we can believe in. It is not change at all.

You seem to count on Americans having short memories. Perhaps your supporters do. At any rate, your support came more as the result of affect than cognition.

It sounds like you're starting to lose patience and your true temperament is starting to show. What a pity? You wanted this job. If you didn't know what it entailed then you were naive. Every president has had to convince the opposition. So don't complain about it now.

You spoke many times of the "failed politics" of the last eight years. President Bush could have legitimately blamed the housing crisis, plus Global Crossing and Enron misdeeds on the Carter and Clinton administrations, during which they were seeded, and the Social Security funding problems on earlier Democratic administrations.

He could have legitimately blamed 9/11 on our failure to respond to earlier terrorism attacks during the Clinton administration.

But he didn't. He took full responsibility and worked to solve them. This is what a leader does. This is what a President does.  This is what an adult does.  In the words of your Biblical paraphrase, "It is time to put aside childish things."

If the problems besetting Bush had been as easy to solve as you seem to think don't you think they would have been solved?

When you won the election by a popular vote of 53% to 46% that is not a mandate as you have claimed.

Forty-six percent represents 60 million people who do not agree with you and didn't want you to be president. Their representatives in Congress oppose your programs. Those 60 million people who don't have a thrill run up their leg when they hear you speak are about equal to the combined populations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

You outspent your opponent by $168 million, or 48% yet only won by a voting margin of 15% over your opponent. Your margin of victory cost $17.53 per vote.  Did you ever account for the sources of that money, by the way? 

If you were truly preferred by the electorate why didn't you get 48% more votes than your opponent? This would have equaled your margin of spending.

Here's where you were fooled. You associated with the likes of communist William Ayers, black liberationist/Marxist Rev. Wright, members of the pseudo-intellectual liberal far left, and Oprah Winfrey and the Hollywood crowd. They all thought like you.   Even in college when you sought discussion with far left professors, as you said you did, you were garnering reinforcement, not challenges, to your beliefs. No wonder you think socialism is the solution for economic problems. You were not confronted with different socio-political philosophies during the formative stages of your beliefs.

I suggest to you that a tenured professor is poorly qualified to recommend an economic system because tenure provides protection from economic consequences. He doesn't even have to teach to keep his job. A professor can afford to be a socialist. What does he care? If he wants to settle for what he has, he has it made.

You shouldn't be surprised at your rude awakening. As a lecturer in Constitutional law you are certainly acquainted with the concept of checks and balances in government.

What's going to happen to you? You are already on your way to being a one-term president, leaving office sorely rejected as was Jimmy Carter by the voters.

Your economic and defense programs will lead to disaster. You won't be able to "pay your bills" in terms of what voters expect and behind-the-scenes supporters are owed. The polyglot Democrats will self-destruct from within as factions attempt to "pay their bills" by promoting selfish provincial agendas, many of which conflict with each others' goals, your goals, and the priority needs of America.

As has happened in good times and in bad, the American voter will suffer the consequences of your poor administration, pick up the pieces, and hopefully make a better choice next time. I take heart remembering our history that four bad years of Jimmy Carter laid the groundwork for eight great years of Ronald Reagan.

This sets the stage for gun legislation.  If Americans can't be trusted to use lawn chairs responsibly how can they ...

Perhaps the security measures are the clearest sign we can get that he truly understands his supporters.  People who would reject the "All American Boy" in favor of the "Un-American Boy" are worrisome.

In the spirit of good security, however, here are some other suggestions and ramifications:

Anyone who has martial arts ability will have to attend in handcuffs and leg irons.  This won't affect Chuck Norris, who is a conservative, and who will no doubt spare himself the misery of seeing Obama coronated, er I mean inaugurated.  He might need to be restrained if he watches it on TV.  I think I might.

Pro team place kickers and punters will have to have their kicking foot tied to a stake in the ground.

Discus throwers will be checked for platters and other dishes that could become projectiles.

If you've ever participated in dart-ball, tennis, badminton, ping-pong, checkers, or any other passtime that requires physical coordination or mental acumen you can't attend.  You have potentially dangerous physical and mental capabilities.  Hell, you might even be able to hold a real job, which would automatically exclude you from the invitation list.

Golfers will have their balls confiscated at the gate as dangerous weapons.  It may not be an issue because possibly few people with balls will get invited.  For example, a lot of Hollywood will be there.

Magicians won't be allowed to bring their pigeons in case the pigeons would have political opinions of their own and decide to express them.

If you've ever hunted, or even fished, stay away.  You're a known killer.  If you eat yogurt you are a known threat to very small creatures.  Some of the creatures at the inauguration will be very small, indeed.

People in the first few rows of seats will be required to wear "Hannibal Lecter" muzzles in case they can't be trusted with their teeth.

People coming to the inauguration will be subject to strip searches for firearms unless they can prove they are from Washington D.C. or Chicago, IL, in which case it will be assumed that they are familiar with firearms because they use them daley, uh I mean daily.  Let's hope it's not too cold for everyone else.

Weight lifters will be barred from the ceremonies due to Obama worries that one of them might heave one of the portable toilets at him.  Everyone attending will be required to pass a weakness test before entering the grounds.  If you can't pick up a portable toilet with 3 other guys, you're in.

Rev. Wright will have to attend with his mouth taped shut.

Bill and Bernadine will have to leave their matches at home.

People with halitosis and a tendency to flatulence will be seated downwind of the dais.  Those who want to sit upwind will have to bring a doctor's note attesting that they have neither condition.  This could be called the “heads you lose, tails you lose” doctrine.

Can you even begin to imagine the security cost when Obama goes to a Muslim capital to make his major foreign policy speech as he has announced he intends to do?  But maybe it won't cost as much as I think.  Perhaps Obama may feel that he can trust foreign Muslims more than he can trust domestic American citizens.  So far, there is at least as much evidence that he is a Muslim as there is that he is an American citizen.  Is he one, the other, neither, both?

Now I understand why Obama feels he needs a National Civilian Police Force that is 4 times the size of our present military, as he announced in a speech in Denver last July.  He needs protection from lethal weapons like lawn chairs, strollers, thermos bottles, ice chests, bicycles, and backpacks.

We can be certain of good weather for inauguration.  Obama is at least an intermediate deity, although Time Magazine ranks him higher than that, and deities are supposed to control such things as weather.  Deities control the economy, too.  Just drop a trillion in the collection plate.  Then, have hope.

Chuckles

I would like it very much if the starry-eyed liberal media would spare me the comparisons between Obama and Jesus. They maketh me to blaspheme. 

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and the spiritual leader of Christianity which He founded 2000 years ago. Obama of south Chicago is the son of a divorced drunk and is a politician who is not yet in office and hasn't done much except gather questionable associates and get elected.

Jesus' Mother was reportedly a virgin at the time of His birth. There is no report that Obama's mother, presumably a nice lady, was a virgin at the time of his birth.

Jesus died for me. Obama has done nothing for me to date.

This is not to disrespect Obama or his parents, please understand, but let's skip the deity crap.

The argument that Obama is like Jesus may gain some credibility if Obama walks across the top of the water in the Reflecting Pool in the summertime without getting his feet wet, or if he can start out with a basket full of fish and feed the nation.

If the Wash. Post and NYTimes, and other lib media, had pursued and reported the truth about Obama, his birth, associates, beliefs, and qualifications for office with the same tenacity they did Nixon and Watergate American voters would have had much more complete and valid information on which to make their votes.

I'm not saying Obama wouldn't have won anyway.  I'm saying that we were denied information about him.  He was sold to us by the media.  The "end justifies the means" was a Marxist tenet long before American liberals embraced it. The conduct of the Obama campaign convinces me that he and his associates share that belief with other liberals, as Prager points out.

I have no problem with editorialization by the news media if they present it as their opinion.

However, the news media editorializes in more clandestine ways.  They do this by deciding what to report, where to put it, how to feature it, and how to say it.  An example of what I mean:

McCain makes a speech.  (1) Don't report it;  Or (2) Run a small story on page C22; (3)Use no photo; (4) Use a derogatory headline (like "McCain fumbles words"); (5) Be critical in the body text; (6) Feed the little story to an editorial writer to drive home to the reader the deficiencies of the speech.

Obama makes a speech.  (1) Page one, featured position with 2-inch high headlines; (2)Devote half of page 1 to it (3)Show a photo of cheering thousands; (4)Use a flattering headline (like "Obama's brilliant oratory enchants hundreds of thousands"); (5)Use glowing prose in the body text; (6)Feed the big front page story to an editorial writer to tell us this is why we should vote for Obama.

Thought for the day:  Socialism may put food in a dog's dish.  It also puts a collar and chain on the dog.

CNHakes,
Former president, Newspaper Research Council

Left Angle MD claims:  "The odd thing about this is that they are saying isnt true..from william ayers to reverand wright to acorn rezko to socialism to alinsky. ALL of this stuff was reported and vetted and obama wasnt found to have commited any crimes or done anything unethical."

Wrong, Left Angle.  Reported, yes.  Vetted, no.  Obama and his crew managed to slide by with half truths.  The left-leaning media let them.  If the Washington Post had given Obama one-fifth of the attention they gave to Watergate Obama would not have been elected.

"Ayers was some guy who lives in my neighborhood and teaches."  Truth--the hidden relationship:  Obama and Ayers served on the Woods and Annenberg boards.  Obama funded Ayers' liberal education projects with millions of Woods and Annenberg monies.

"I can no more disown (Wright) than my grandmother."  Then:  "This is not the man I knew."  Truth:  Obama soaked up Wright's sermons for 20 years.  Wright's G-D America speech was purely and simply an expression of black liberation theology tenets.  Reason tells us that Obama certainly knew and shared Wright's theological beliefs.
  
"We have to spread the wealth."  Truth:  That is a socialistic statement about a socialistic practice.

"I support the 2nd Amendment but we need to get AK-47s out of the hands of schoolchildren."  Truth:  The AK-47 part sounds good.  Obama's gun rights record denies his words.

Obama repudiated Wright and quit Trinity Church.  He did not repudiate Marxist black liberation theology which he soaked up for 20 years at Trinity.

Obama is characterized as a professor of constitutional law.  His academic rank was lecturer which is much lower than professor.  It normally requires a number of years to become a professor.

You say:  "Obama wasnt found to have commited any crimes or done anything unethical." Truth:  Crimes, no.  Lying, yes.  Lying is unethical, except perhaps to the far left.  Hiding your agenda if you are a candidate for elected office is a form of lying and is unethical.

Duh!  Racists don’t usually self-disclose their racism, except perhaps to other racists.

But in the privacy of the voting booth ‘political correctness’ will not be observed. No cultural stigma will be attached to voting against a black candidate for racial reasons or any other.

Does this happen? Here’s one example.

In 1986, reported in the Detroit Free Press, Republican challenger William Lucas, a black, ran for Michigan governor against the Democratic incumbent James Blanchard, a white. Lucas was a man of fine reputation who had served well in government. He had no “baggage” as has Obama.

Blanchard won with about two-thirds of the vote. Blind ballot exit polling found 5% of the voters saying that race influenced their vote. 

In a telephone survey 2-3 days later of voters in that election, 28% said that they thought Michigan was not ready for a black governor. An added 21% would not commit to saying that Michigan was ready for a black governor. 51% said Michigan was ready.

Two other questions were asked using projective questioning. These found:

54% said Lucas’ being black influenced votes among people they knew.

61% said Lucas’ being black influenced voters in general.

The point is that progressively more voters said they considered race to be a factor as the question wordings further distanced respondents from personal disclosure of racial motivation.

That was in Michigan a generation ago. Probably one-third of those voters have since passed away, leaving two-thirds of them to vote in 2008.

We think our society has become more racially tolerant in a generation, have we not? Notwithstanding the utterances of the Reverend Wright and Michelle Obama's Columbia thesis there is no doubt that blacks and whites have become much more accepting of each other. Whether that movement in our society represents change on an individual basis, or is taking place because people with old prejudices are dying and being replaced by new people without those prejudices is a matter for conjecture. It is probably some of both. At any rate, some people with the old prejudices will be voting in November.

An example of how poll findings differed from voting behavior is to be found in a more recent study. Micah Altman of Harvard University and Philip Klinkner of Hamilton College found discrepancies in the range of 2:1 to 3:1, between pre-election polling findings and voting results. The ballot issue was the legality of interracial marriage in South Carolina and Alabama.

Whites were found to be less likely than blacks to approve of interracial marriage, and most importantly, were less likely than blacks to divulge their true voting intentions on the issue.   The study was circa 2004, and apparently utilized data from the year 2000.

The message from these examples is that race will have an influence and that conventional polling methods will be challenged to obtain true measurements of voting intentions. The problem will not be to measure black voting intention. Blacks are almost all in the Obama camp. The problem will be to obtain accurate measurements of white voting intentions. This is not to say that valid measurements cannot be obtained.

The only other Presidential election in recent history with significant racial aspects was Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace in 1968 in which there was concern about closet support for the anti-civil rights Alabama Gov. George Wallace. Special methods had to be employed to ensure that Wallace supporters were appropriately measured.

The so-called Bradley effect took place in 1982. Bradley was leading in the polls going into the California gubernatorial election, only to lose by a slim margin. Speculation since has gone both directions – that it was because of race and that is was for other reasons. Without firm experimental controls or a quick follow-up survey, it is hard to know.

Is the 2008 election racist in nature? Indications suggest that it is. 95% of blacks plan to vote for Obama, compared to about 40%, or somewhat more, of whites. Probability analysis says this is too big a difference to be ascribed to chance. This conclusion is muddied by the nature of the election issues themselves, and the fact that blacks customarily support the Democratic candidate by a wide margin.

Will Obama be hurt in the election by closet racism? Undoubtedly, but by how much is unknown. He will be hurt most by misgivings about him some of which derive from his ethnic subculture and associations and activities.

By Chuck Hakes

Revised 10/21/2008 2:26 PM

In a July 2 speech in Colorado Springs Obama discussed his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military.  Obama claimed: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

This is confusing.  I thought the liberal point of view was that we spent too much on the military. Now Obama wants to quadruple what we spend on the military and add a civilian national security force equal to the military in size and expense. That means he wants to spend eight times what we are presently spending on the military. Not to mention multiple cost increases in the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. 

Who is the “we” who set the national security objectives he refers to? What are these objectives?

I was puzzled about this. Why do we need a civilian national security force of this nature or any nature, for that matter?  Is this to protect us from outside threats or to protect the government from the American people? Is it to keep the American public in line? 

This sounds very much like one of the steps a person or party in power would take in preparation for the establishment of a communist police state. Yet, the United States Constitution gives us certain rights that protect us against becoming a communist police state. How might our rights and the freedoms of the American people be stolen away? 

Writing as a devil’s advocate, here’s how it can be done. The only significant question is how long it will take. As president, I think I can make major progress in eight years. During the early stages of this transformation, as with my presidential campaign, I will be careful not to mention communism, except to “fellow travelers.” Segments of the American public who might not understand that I will bring them communism will not support me if they catch on. This minor deception is OK with my conscience because I believe with other communists that the end justifies the means.

Of greatest first importance, I will make the American people suffer. I mean really suffer economically. I will make the present economy ten times, twenty times worse.  I will drive the economy into a deep depression. I’ll make the Great Depression look like a child’s tea party.  Initially the few jobs to be had will be low-paying because supply would far outstrip demand in the labor market. Many more people will lose homes, investments, and savings. A growing number of people at the very bottom of the economy will be living under bridges and in shanty towns. People will be starving and freezing to death. There will be bread lines. Charitable organizations will be unable to help ease the suffering. They will lack funds because their donations will dry up.

I will make the purpose of taxation the redistribution of wealth, from the richer to the poorer.  Taxes on investors will discourage investing and drive the economy into a tailspin.  Business taxes are ultimately paid by consumers therefore these taxes will be paid by even the poorest citizens whenever they can afford to buy. Many of my supporters do not have this understanding and that will help me get elected.

The businesses that will prosper will be those that receive tax credits for not using foreign labor and this will give those companies a competitive pricing advantage. These are the companies that will survive. It won’t be long before everybody gets on this bandwagon.

Because of economic bailouts, loans, and regulations the banking and finance system will largely dance to my tune.

This tax plan will also create an economy with the labor market effectively closed to the outside world but it will not necessarily keep illegal aliens from working in this country. This will be an early step in increasing the dependence of American companies and American workers on the Federal Government. Soon there will be nearly total dependence. This is helpful in a totalitarian state. 

Some wealthy citizens will lose their affluent lifestyle because of the tax system, but not all. Those who will lose will be those allied with roles in a capitalistic system. Some will be excluded from high taxation by earning their income through personal services, such as acting.

Citizens will be justifiably irate about the economy and unfair taxes, but will be unable to do anything about this because I plan to nullify their First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms so they can neither effectively voice their opposition nor have any ability to contest it.

That is because I will create a National Civilian Police Force, answerable to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.  This will consolidate the power of the National Civilian Police with that of the Military, and place it all under my control as the president of the United States. This huge armed force will be eight times the size of our present military. This will ensure that no commanding officer of the U. S. Military will be able to rise up against me. I will make sure that the National Civilian Police are better equipped than the Military. Their allegiance will be sworn to me and the party, not the United States of America.

I will replace all local police departments with decentralized units of the National Civilian Police. Instead of your local police being accountable to you through your city council, and your state police accountable to you through your state government, all police will report to the president of the United States.

The local units of the National Civilian Police force will proceed to disarm the American public just like the local police did with storm trooper tactics in New Orleans.  Second Amendment rights will be nullified. That this happened is a fact and illustrates the ease with which citizens can be disarmed by a superior police force.

In the case of New Orleans, the NRA recovered the guns for the owners. This won’t happen in my regime. The sorry state of the economy will have dried up NRA donation funding.

There are several ways to disarm the American public:

A couple more liberal justices on the Supreme Court will change the interpretation of the Second Amendment, and "right to bear arms" will mean not individually but as members of a government-sanctioned militia.  Another way it can happen is to create a number of shooting massacre incidents and use these as justification that the public can no longer be entrusted with guns. Yet another way is to allow ownership but deny use. The gun has to be checked at the police station when you are not hunting with it is one way. Or, perhaps the gun can be kept under lock and key at your home but with the key stored at the police station. A fourth possibility entails criminal penalties. If your gun is stolen from your home and used in a crime you face criminal penalties.

Yet another way is to make it illegal to shoot an intruder in your home in defense of your family or your life or possessions. Another way is to require an expensive license to own a gun. This would be easy to enforce because all police in the local and state jurisdictions where records of licensed guns are presently maintained would be members of the National Civilian Police. A license fee of, say, $100,000 per gun should be adequate to disarm a lot of citizens, or make criminals of them. 

Sooner or later during this progression from democracy to communism powerful people who oppose me will start to disappear. Some will have tragic accidents or fatal illnesses. Some will simply not be heard of again. It will be suggested in hushed tones that the disappeared people were not supporters of my agenda. Because I will directly or indirectly control the Military, the National Civilian Police, the FBI, and the CIA, there will be no objective investigative body. The United States Congress will have come under my control early in the exercise of my plans. Legislators in my party who oppose me will simply receive no party support for re-election and will be replaced by legislators who voiced support for my agenda. Therefore, Congress will not investigate anything without my approval.

My staunch supporters in the liberal media will not make any inquiries that might be embarrassing to me. This has already become their practice.

Illegal aliens and other non-US citizens will have voting rights. This will make it easier for my cohorts and me to get re-elected. They will want to re-elect me because I’ll give them welfare, free medical services, and free education. They won’t even have to become citizens or learn English to get these things.

In short time, anarchy would reign. Criminals who kept firearms will prey on the American public. Only those citizens who are favored by the Federal Government will have any chance of being protected from criminals by the National Civilian Police. A citizen who unlawfully retains a firearm and protects his home with it will be subject to criminal penalties for owning the firearm, shooting it, and shooting the intruder.

After nullifying the Second Amendment and disarming the American public, I will limit the effectiveness of the First Amendment.   With my Congressional support I will enact laws requiring politically correct speech, which will effectively bar overt dissent regarding government officials, actions, or programs. On a media level, the broadcast licenses of conservative voices will be cancelled. Fox will either change its programming or go out of business.

Laws based on “political correctness” will make it virtually impossible for any citizen to disagree with a person of a different ethnicity for any reason. Disagreement will not be judged by its authenticity but by political correctness. Citizens will face civil litigation and criminal prosecutions for legitimately speaking their minds. Citizens will be fined or jailed for off-hand comments that will be judged out of context by the liberal legal and court system. Citizens’ lives will be ruined by innocent comments.  

This atmosphere of fear will help prevent criticisms of my associates and myself.

I will take the legal restrictions on the First Amendment as far as I can and then apply economic sanctions.

By this time, via subsidies and regulations much of the economy will be under direct control of the Fed.   Property ownership involves tangible property and the intangible rights to use that property. When rights to use are taken away property ownership is diminished. In short, you may own a business but the Fed will control it.

Under government control many or most jobs will only be available through the government and those will go to people who are in the favor of the regime. This situation will provide strong economic sanctions on free speech. Sure, there will still be a First Amendment. You better not exercise the rights you think it grants if you want food and shelter.

Another step will be the federalization of education. Basic skills like the 3 R’s are important. But equally important is indoctrination into communism if my change for America is to be permanent. My government will be better capable of administering uniform education than is an array of teachers scattered across the country, who are teaching in local schools, and who are accountable to many different school boards, some of which may not support communism.

There will be no more local school boards and local or state school funding. All would be under the control of the Fed. School and teachers will be decentralized as now. The educational agenda will be set by my administration and only those teachers who agree with the communist agenda will get jobs.

It goes without saying that participation in any of the service corps of the Fed will be tantamount to indoctrination in their role in the new world society. This will get the high school and college kids on board, make them dependent on the government for their subsistence, and teach them that this is the way things should be.

Education in my communist agenda will start at 2 years of age or younger. Children will become educational wards of the state.   Parenting will become a thing of the past. Parents will be careful what they say around their children for fear their child may report them to their teachers and then the parents will lose their jobs.

Some children will be taken from their parents for an advanced education agenda. This will prepare the chosen ones for roles in the new world society.

To further my educational agenda I will rewrite history books to declare that our founding fathers were not patriots and heroes but were treasonous criminals and slavers. I would strip America of patriotism, which would become anathema in the new world order toward which we would all be working. There should be no feelings of nationalism in the new world.

I will continue to honor our war dead. Over time, through skillful public relations and propaganda, I will foster the belief that the war dead are a needless tragedy from wars that we should not have fought. This is already a popular idea with some liberals.

I will strip America of its heritage and teach our young that it has taken America over 230 years to get where we should be as a communist society.

We will still have elections and we may continue to kid ourselves that we live in a free country. There will be few, if any dissenters because of the economic sanctions on freedom of speech. All candidates will support the party line so there will not really be a choice. 

Perhaps election 2008 will be the last opportunity to make a choice between two diverse American futures.

Members of a society use the resources of that society, and the more members there are the more that must be spent on them. Eventually the government may feel justified to control the size of our society by controlling the number entering through birth, and exiting via death. Both the very young and the very old use resources of society but don’t create value for it. 

As is the case in communist China, couples may be required to limit the number of their offspring. Any pregnancies over quota would be terminated by abortion, and continued pregnancies by sterilization.

The costs of an aging population are another matter. Eventually, to save resources for the younger productive members of society, a program of either tacit or overt euthanasia will be implemented. Tacit is practiced at present with consent. This is where a person gets sick, decides not to pursue treatment, gets sicker, and dies. Overt euthanasia is where the elder is killed, with or without their consent.

If I were running for president and had a body of like-minded legislators to support me, and if I wanted to make America a communist society, that's how I would proceed.  It wouldn't happen overnight but I could get a lot done in 8 years.  In a generation you wouldn't even begin to recognize this place we call the Land of the Free.

Here’s Barack Obama’s position on these steps to make America a communistic society:

• He wants to expand our military by 4 times and have his own private police force of equal size. He has not explained the purpose of this.

• He opposes private ownership of guns and has done so by passing or attempting to pass restrictive legislation. His plans included legal sanctions for protecting your home with a gun, legal sanctions if your gun is stolen from your home and then used in a crime, and high taxes on firearms and ammunition. In Illinois he was instrumental in passing legislation to ban handguns entirely, except that Chicago gangs still have them.

• He wants to redistribute wealth. Part of this plan is to raise taxes on the rich – those people who invest most heavily. This will drive the economy into a tailspin and create an absolute economic disaster by reducing investment capital and the incentive to invest. This will put him in a better condition to control the economy.

• He believes in free speech only when it favors him. His organization has tried to stifle free speech by threatening legal action against the NRA and others. He has personally objected to the free speech of conservative media (Fox) but not the liberal media. (In a New York Times interview.)

• He claims that opposing media views (Fox vs NYTimes and almost all others) are divisive and interfere with his plans. What plans does he have to which he will not countenance opposition? (In the same New York Times interview.)

• He has already been involved, along with the bomber & education professor Ayers, in teaching school children a radical ACORN liberal agenda under the guise of using Annenberg and Woods funds to improve their skills.

• He thinks aliens should have many or all of the rights of citizens.

• He doesn’t mind killing babies who are born alive, and he has said he does not want his daughters “punished” with a baby. This indicates his belief that the convenience of the public takes precedence over life. If you are a senior citizen on socialized medicine, expect a tap on the shoulder by the universal health care people when your maintenance gets too costly. Still, it might be more welcome to get the tap than to continue living under Obama communism.

• He was either unpatriotic or stupid not to wear a flag pin and participate with America in other patriotic gestures at the outset of his campaign. 

• He is an intellectual snob, who time and again has displayed that he thinks the intelligence of the American public is so low that he can sell us any deception if he explains it with soaring rhetoric.

• He is deceptive. He lied, or told partial truths, or has avoided discussing, or has flip-flopped about: 
• His campaign funding intentions
• Who donates to him
• His relationship with Rev. Wright
• His relationship with Fr. Pfleger
• His black liberation theology beliefs
• His involvement with avowed communists, terrorists, and bombers, Ayers and Dohrn
• His involvement with ACORN
• His other associations
• His specific work as a community organizer
• His intentions concerning Iraq
• His intentions concerning Iran
• His stance concerning other terrorist/communist/Muslim states
• His patriotism
• His stance on the 2^nd Amendment

Barack Obama works with his own set of definitions, and always leaves himself an “out.”

If you look at the substance of his past it is little wonder that he wants to keep the campaign focus on plans for the future. Yet his past defines him and signals us what he will do.