"Change" is one thing...

...but a guy to the left of Ted Kennedy?






I'm fairly confident that my fellow Americans will not knowingly choose a committed socialist as our president. However, as six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America, Norman Thomas, threatened, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings."

In the midst of Obamamania that's sweeping the country, it is encouraging to remember that we have actually elected several Republican presidents throughout the last few generations of progressive promise-makers that the Democrats and other leftist parties have fielded. Despite the sincere and passionate efforts of some of the most oratorically gifted snakeoil salesmen to take the national stage, the American people have had the sense, often enough, to recognize the emptiness of their populist pap.

Unfortunately, every four years, certainly eight, there's a new crop of young skulls-full-of-mush to be tempted, cajoled, bribed, and bamboozled with the lofty rhetoric of economic equality.

And then there's always the older adults that might be experiencing a season of testing, trying hard to get ahead, or just keep up, and the struggle just..seems...so....haarrrd at times, that...you just want to give up and give in. Give in to socialism's siren song of orchestrated equality, promising you an easier lot in life. Less toiling, burdens lifted, and finally, finally, somebody who cares about you and your plight.

People feeling that way are the prime targets of liberal politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton, who get their power from pandering to those who feel powerless. (...or just challenged.) They pit themselves against the strawman that is somehow responsible for whatever difficulties and obstacles their target audience may feel are hindering their pursuit of happiness. If the populist pol can convince them that he empathizes with their struggle and will do battle for them against those conservative culprits conspired to confound their efforts to live their lives the way they want, and to get what is rightfully theirs, then he's got a constituent.

Populist liberalism always creates convenient villians of the wealthy and the powerful, as if their wealth came at your expense, and their power is unearned, unethical, and oppressive.

Obama constructs the false struggle he hopes his followers will swallow and even adopt as their own: “We spend our whole lives caught up in being told what we can’t do. (By whom?!) And what’s not possible, and that children have to be poor (what?) and race always is going to matter in this country ( the mantra of black "leaders") and there’s always going to be injustice and the economy can never work for anybody (the opposite of conservatism!). We’re fed that stuff all the time (by the DNC and NAACP). Mostly by folks who are in power and take advantage of the status quo.” Bullshit, Barack! It's the liberal leaders of your own Democratic Party that say those things, as a pretense to their own power grabs.

Oh, that one- just one- mainstream media reporter or debate moderator would have the curiousity and journalistic integrity to press Obama for an identification of specifically whom he believes has been communicating such negative messages to him his whole life! **3/22 update: Now we know who-- his own pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright!**

On January 20th, Obama proclaimed at a church in Atlanta, "Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe...that racial reconciliation can come easily - that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved. All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick." Which institutions? Colleges, banks, churches? The Boys Scouts/Girls Scouts, 4-H, Knights of Colombus, Jaycees? Elected offices at local, state, or national levels? The NAACP, Ku Klux Klan, the National Urban League, or the National Vanguard? Well, yes, at least two of those institutions DO seek to exploit racial divisions in this country. But they wield power over ANYbody's lives only if you give them that power to do so. In fact, if we enlightened people simply ignore or ostracize (like in "Twelve Angry Men") those "ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past", we could so marginalize them and emasculate their dwindling influence in society that, along with interracial marriage, race will finally become an insignificant non-factor in our country.

Speaking to the Nat'l Conference of Black Mayors last May, Obama claimed "...millions of children are not given an equal chance to realize their own potential. And for too long, our kids -- not "those kids," but our kids -- have been asked to settle for mediocrity simply because of their zip code, the color of their skin, and how much their parents earn." Mr Obama, WHO has asked them to settle for mediocrity? Especially because of skin color? This country doesn't expect anyone to settle for mediocrity. This country offers more opportunity for acheiving excellence than any in the history of man.

A year ago in Selma, Alabama, Obama illogically generalized: "...we've got what's known as a health care disparity in this nation because many of the uninsured are African American or Latino. Life expectancy is lower. Almost every disease is higher within minority communities. The health care gap." "...beacuse many of the uninsured are African American..." Well, many of them are white, also. All ethnicities, in fact are included. Republicans, democrats, and third party people are among the uninsured, as well. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists, athiests, and even some Hindus are uninsured, I'm sure. So are right handed people, left handed people, and the ambidextrous. You get the point. The uninsured are uninsured by no design; no conspiracy, no orchestrated plan to discriminate, no hidden agenda at play to oppress any particular people group. And the inclusion of any particular demographic is no more disconcerting than another demographic. Except, of course, for children.

The bottom line is this: liberals only win when they can convince enough people that their problems are somebody else's fault or are too big to be handled personally, and that the government is the only solution to those problems.