Two Person Poll

I have been speaking to people about the upcoming election. My brother seemed typical of many who have switch allegiance from Obama and his Democrats. As usual, it didn't take any encouragement for him to let me know that he didn't like certain economic developments. He said he had supported Obama only because of the alternative. He seemed to think that McCain was lack-luster with no personal appeal (I don't recall the exact word he used). He didn't have anything good to say about unions, especially government unions. This was surprising because, besides having his Alaskan fishing business in the Summer, he often has had a union job. Even union workers understand the distinction between unions that negotiate with management and those that negotiate with politicians. The biggest difference is that the politicians are not paying the workers' with their own money but with ours.

Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.

Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.

An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.

See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)

More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"

This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)

As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.