Ms. Martin,

            Your emotional adherence to an ideology is truly admirable, but the viability of the country whose opulence allows you to write emotional diatribe and sell it to a quasi-Christian paper for whatever pittance you make for the effort would be sadly inhibited were your awe-invoking socialist elected. 

I have some brutal storms of disappointment for you, but they are in the form of an awakening.  I only pray your – and a majority of our fellow-Americans – awakening comes while it is the very small pain of realization that we are on the brink of a precipice, and not through four overbearing years of the lies and distractions a thinking person can only extrapolate will continue to come from this man as we careen down the cliff of socialism to which he is committed to push us.

You speak of beauty and logic with regard to your candidate’s rhetoric, proving that John Dewey’s [ß Two links here, because I know this is some folks’ hero, but the truth about him needs to be told, especially in an educationally accomplished realm. ŕ] work re-directing our education system, dumbing down the populace to a point where they will acquiesce to governmental control on their lives, is coming to fruition. 

If you understand Obama’s rhetoric, buy into it, and are attempting to continue the subjugation of your countrymen; you, like he, have become dangerous to the political experiment of democratic republicanism we call the United States of America.  If you believe his rhetoric without comprehending it, you are scary.

Do you not realize how much of Obama’s rhetoric is written by David Axelrod, and how much is inspired by Saul Alinsky (see also Machiavelli, Marx, Hegel, and Rosseau)?  

Your candidate (Louis Farrakahn’s messiah – his words, not Rush Limbaugh’s; and you may decline seeing him this way, but then in the next sentence you logically assert he has yet to fall from grace…  Denial is the first stage.) cannot string two sentences together most days without a TelePromTer. 

Compare and contrast his impromptu performances with those of George W. Bush, in case the mainstream press has befuddled you as to his eloquence – or utter lack there-of without a prepared and practiced line.  Both men are very smart, and Obama may even be the smarter.  Maybe he is not.  But he can’t speak impromptu, not because he is daft, but because he has to always remember what he already promised the majority of folks in earshot, wash what he wants to say through the bleach-bucket of Marxist dogma and Alinskian cloaking of the true objective, and then process and articulate a coherent thought.  Bush gets his tang toungled up between his eyed-teeth and can’t see what he’s saying sometimes (would you believe he does that for fun some days?), but Obama doesn’t dare tell you what he really thinks – and he thinks he is smart enough to get that past you.  Maybe he is.

A trained constitutional lawyer, on a good day, Obama would sound obnoxiously boorish if he fleshed out thoughts in keeping with his level of training.  That is, if he hadn’t been educated well beyond his intellectual capacity to decipher and regurgitate information.  That, to say nothing of his inability to synthesize a new thought.  If this man invokes awe in you, you have led a poor life, indeed. 

He has yet to proffer a unique, positive idea of his own generation as far as I can tell.  His speeches are platitudinous strings of condescending blather written by campaign staffers and leftist spin-doctors at Media Matters For America that lack any commitment – at least any commitment he hasn’t contradicted or will not contradict explicitly in another speech to a different demographic.  Maybe you’re not a bitter American clinging to your guns and Bibles, so his condescension and contradictions may not hit you at home.  

I’ll concede that he consistently wants to lose the war in Iraq, and telegraph the date of our pulling out to the enemy.  (I’ll have to come clean here and tell you I know some of the folks there on the ground who would be put in harm’s way with a greatly encouraged enemy at this juncture, and I stand viscerally opposed to this point on personal grounds.  Do not let this revelation or the lives of our nation’s bravest and brightest adversely affect the way you evaluate this, otherwise, middle-of-the-road and un-biased evaluation of a legitimate, upstanding political candidate.)

And then there is his unspoken-yet-pervasive-and-obvious-to-any-discerning-observer drive to socialize everything in our country.  You know, socialism, just like in the old Soviet Union, Cuba, Cambodia, Venezuela, North Korea, etc., etc.  How is that working out for them?  They’re obviously all so much better of than we are as a country that we need to follow them into that blissful good night.  Right?  Nope.  Left.  Where Che Guevara is a revolutionary hero, murdering those who will not comply.  Take from the rich and give to the poor until there are no rich any more (Then who will we take from?), and subject the people to government oversight in every part of our being. 

(Yes, he condescends to you, and you are in awe of it.  You need his oversight for health care, the markets, making the globe cool down and the oceans recede, jobs and insurance, real-estate, education, green enough cars – do we really need them anyway?  Al Gore says we should get rid of them all, except his.  And don’t even think about his jet – to ensure your kids are not punished with a baby, etc., etc…  He says it is true, and you believe it.  Doesn’t that make you feel great about yourself?)

If his books are what have you enthralled about his complex thinking, I encourage you to read again – or maybe read for the first time and quit accepting blindly the company line initiated by George Soros and and parroted liberally by the “centrist” (This is a code-word meaning socialist-or-leftist-but-claiming-to-speak-for-all while shivers run up and down their legs whenever that awesome one speaks.  Is it racist to call him “that awesome one”?) press, and really check out what this socialist radical has to say.  

If his indefensible claims of rampant interminable insufferable racial injustice (read: race-baiting) and use of the term “Whitey” to describe anyone of his mother’s family and most of our country didn’t alarm you the first time, maybe you’ll see them the second – or, more probably, first actual – trip through.  (Who is the racist here?  I am talking about the content of a man’s character, and he categorizes me based on the color of my skin.)  Read critically – for a change.  (Maybe this guy can inspire change, after all…) 

Maybe this time you’ll notice that he admits he was an abject failure as a community organizer.  If you would take the time to research your candidate instead of believing what he says over a lectern at a political event or what the fawning press corps drivels about him, you may find that he represents the absolute worst of political hacks.  But he promises hope and change.

He could have worked anywhere after graduating from Harvard, but chose to clean up the mean streets of Chicago.  That is what he says.  What he DID was clean up ON the mean streets of Chicago. 

What he did for the people there was ineffectual – his sentiment in “The Audacity of Hope.”  Check out present crime statistics.  The neighborhood is a shambles and its people are stuck in a downward spiral of poverty, in spite of generations of benevolent Democrat politicians in the Daley machine (including the only man who can save the polar bears) promising to take care of the people.  This image is replicated in New Orleans and Detroit, in case one needs reference to see this is a pattern of behavior for Democrats and their victims – er… voters...

Look for anyone who can tell you that Obama’s actions improved their lot in life, and you’ll come up with a number near that of people who can show how Hillary Clinton improved their education after all the years and tax dollars she spent fighting for it.  (A statistical zero, if you need that spelled out for you.)  Statistical zero, because there really are people who benefited from Obama’s efforts in Chicago.  Obama sought this place out, and he sought out those who could help him the most. 

He sat down in a counter-culture black nationalist church, subjecting his children to the rantings of a racist, anti-semetic, anti-American, Afro-centric pastor who some times had time for God between his 501-c3 sheltered socialist dogma.  (That means you and I paid for this guy to have the bully pulpit.  Could anyone get away with actively promoting a Republican exclusively and routinely without someone calling the IRS?)   He sat down in that big church because it was popular in the neighborhood in which he aspired to office.  I hope to God Wright preached the gospel and won people to Christ, but based on the black liberation fruits being produced by the past pastor or the present, Rev. Otis Moss III… Well, you can’t get olives and grapes from the same vine.

He got up and walked out on his friend and pastor of twenty years when the man became politically in-expedient for him.  If he won’t stand by a twenty-year friend in favor of his agenda, what makes you think he’ll do anything for you?  If the polar bears really are reliant on Barak for salvation or a future, they’re cooked no matter who gets elected next month.

The convicted slum lord and political fund raiser, Tony Rezko, received millions of dollars at Obama’s hand and was appreciative enough to lead fund raising efforts for the young candidate’s political career and even help him buy a house he couldn’t otherwise afford.  Just in case you may be under the impression Rezko is a fluke, a “guy who lives in the neighborhood” like his good friend, Bill Ayers – or is that just an acquaintance?  Just in case you think those two guys were irrelevant, inconsequential people not indicative of a trend in judgment; just in case Reverend Wright was only one of many and not influential on Obama’s character – never mind he baptized the girls and one of his sermons inspired the title of the wunderkind’s book; just in case you’re still thinking he has a ways to go in falling from that god-like stage he had constructed in Denver; I want to assure you that he is a principled man. 

Barak Obama believes you are a sheep, as Machiavelli teaches.  He believes he can speak platitudes to you and sway your weak mind into an awe-inspired frenzy long enough for him to grasp the reigns of power over our experiment in freedom.  He would subjugate us to our own government, and do away with anything inconvenient, like restrictions on abortion – even after the baby is born in spite of the best efforts of the doctor to kill the inconvenient supposedly unviable little tissue mass, our involvement in Iraq, comments about his politically-active wife, Hussein, comments about his ears, comments about is accomplishments – or embarrassing lack there-of, comments about his agenda, commentators on the radio, and the list goes on.  I wonder if the wunderkind knows that one of his ardent supporters, Planned Parenthood, was established by Margaret Sanger for the expressed Eugenic purpose of helping evolution along by thinning unfit people (genetically handicapped, less-than-bright, poor, homosexuals, criminals, asians and blacks, among others) from the human race.  Is that racist?

That you dare, Ms. Martin, to invoke the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s name in your sycophantic swoon over this racist socialist humanist dyed-in-the-wool dirty Chicago politician (Whatever happened to his opponents in the race for the state senate seat, anyway?) is only another indicator that you are not the thinking individual you purport yourself to be.  At least if you think, you might want to check the levels on your knowledge base before you wax with sophistry about how a man of God might act toward one who advocates killing people for the convenience of others. 

The dream, Ms. Martin, was about judging people on the content of their character – not the color of their skin.  You need to evaluate long and hard in that voting booth whether you are giving Mr. Obama a fair shake, or if you might be casting a sympathy vote – trying to mollify something that you feel may be racist in yourself.  It is called guilt voting, and don’t think his campaign hasn’t been running for the Guilt vote.  Dr. King would disdain such expediency in favor of a truly qualified, experienced, and respectable candidate.  He would urge urgency in advancing the cause, but not burying common sense, no matter how good it makes you feel.

You are a victim if you are waiting for Senator Obama’s permission to lead.  I say lead yourself.  Pick yourself up from the place Dewey’s pathetic educational system has left you and think critically for a change about what you are hoping for.  Everyone in the country is hoping for something.  That this man is hoping for the same thing as every individual in the country (and not a few his Acorn buddies are trying to import or resurrect to vote for him) is ludicrous. 

This community organizer claims he worked for the people of South Chicago, and was nominated to chair boards of educational foundations because of his hard work.  The Annenberg Challenge spent $98Million and, under Obama’s guidance and William Ayers’ assistance, produced the following remarkable results; “The results of an August 2003 final technical report of the Chicago Annenberg Research Project by the Consortium on Chicago School Research "suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."[60].   Now, we know Ayers, with all his foibles, is an incredible leader, able to convince people of their dissatisfaction with government and then their willingness to do some pretty stupid things based on the zeal he inspires.  Obama, on the other hand, has learned to give a speech from a TelePromTer, but maybe not so much the leadership stuff.  If one is a proven great (though mis-guided) leader, and the other is Barak Obama, and nothing gets done with $98.4Million over six years…  Well, there must be a sea-anchor on this yacht.

Lest you think I’d leave you hanging, the sea anchor was Obama’s (and Ayers’) socialism.  Annenberg wanted to improve education.  These two wise-guys wanted to take Dewey’s work one step further, and guided well-intended money to support socialist initiatives in education.  Of course there were no discernable improvements in objective measures of education.  They were teaching collectivism, environmentalism, feminism, racism, and any other flavor-of-the-week-ism that made good activists and community organizers.  They gave hope to people, just not the hope of a good western education.  They gave the counterfeit hope of government programs for birth control, rent control, job creation and preservation (whether or not the employment was economically viable), and any other government hand-out because, obviously, government makes money and people should get their money from the government. 

You are hereby in charge of your own hopes.  Get your dreams, and get them quick, before some socialist says your dreams don’t fit the greater good of society the way they see it.  In Obama’s world view, you are subservient to the nation – to the world.  He claimed in Germany to be a citizen of the world, and his every political motion is to make us subject to global governing bodies.  If you wait for Obama, and he is elected to power, you will have hope – his hope, not yours.  He is offering you hope and change, but you will not like his definitions, if he ever is coerced into providing them. 

You cannot be free unless whatever you are doing is aligned with the “greater good.”  And if you think you’ll get a vote as to that greater good, think again.  Most of all, think.  There-in lies your freedom, and from it will come your leadership. 

If you are frustrated with bureaucracy, look to the Democrat party and the left (even in the Republican ranks), and be frustrated with righteous anger.  The bureaucracy that gave Franklin Raines and a host of others (Can I cite his name without being racist?  Not according to some of Obama’s supporters…) the space in which to bilk us of untold amounts of tax dollars.  See Bloomberg’s story that only starts to scratch the surface, and note the names implicated here that coincide with Obama’s inner circle of financial and housing advisers. 

Note also that, according to, Obama’s campaign enjoyed the second-most money, $126,349.00, from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae contributions since 1989.  (First-most, $165,400.00, was Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee that oversees Freddie and Fannie.  Barney Frank (D-MA) was only involved for $42,300.00, though he did have a lover at Fannie Mae.  I doubt Chris Matthews felt compelled to tell anyone about that while he was trying to lambaste Republicans for the problems.  Not that Matthews couldn’t have been correctly bi-partisan, but he chose not to.  Of course, this is the guy who forgot to tell his audience, also, that he is in the tank for a socialist candidate who has our bail-out dollars in his campaign coffers. 

Anyway, we must have nothing to worry about, because Dodd, Frank, Maxine Watters, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a litany of Democrats assured us of this in 2003 and 2005 when Republicans including the President and Senator McCain presented evidence to the contrary.  Dodd and Frank et. al. must have been right, right?  They promised.  Frank recently even tried some revisionist history, faithfully reported as fact in the press, and then defended that in typical Frank fashion, without refuting that he is wrong, but blustering about the accuser and a few twists of facts.  (Remember, this is a guy who didn’t know his lover was running a prostitution ring out of his own home.  Sounds like a great candidate for chairmanship of the US House of Representatives’ Banking Committee, doesn’t he?  Nothing could ever go wrong under his watchful eye, right?)  Nope.  We’re LEFT holding the bag, now that we bought the pig-in-a-poke of a bail-out we’ve been sold and the cat of a pervasive global economic downturn is out of the bag.  Meanwhile, they blame Republicans for their chicanery.

Sounds like a lovely bunch of folds to hand over our political and economic institutions to, doesn’t it, Ms. Martin?  You are right, your hope is dangerous and naďve.  Just stay calm, think of being on top-of-the-lake-on-a-still-day (if that is what lulls you into mind-numbed semi-consciousness where the socialists can take over and make you dependent on them), and everything will be OK.  You’re voting Democrat, after all.  They’ll take care of you from cradle to grave.  Just cut ‘em a check and pull their lever before you check out.

I suppose you want something positive.  I give you Common Sense.  I give you the United States’ Declaration of Independence.  I give you The Constitution of the United States of America.  I give you all of its ratified amendments, including the 10th, Ms. Martin, that says, no matter who is elected, the US Government is way out of its intended box already, providing entirely too much “assistance” to the people.  It was not to be a fiat for redistribution of the wealth.  It was not to be a vehicle by which people could vote money for themselves. 

But FDR changed all that.  It was not the government and FDR’s programs that got us out of the depression.  It was capitalism and it was a war – a war brought on us, unlike the one Woodrow Wilson shopped for in order to have an excuse for instituting socialist progressive reforms.  We produced, bought, and sold our way out of the poverty of the 1930s, in spite of our government’s best efforts to control those activities.  FDR found a way to use all those government programs to get re-elected, and re-elected, and so on.  He built buildings and bridges in swing-constituencies, ensuring signs were hung and stories were published showing people where their bread was getting buttered.  If you wanted the pork barrels to keep floating down the Tennessee River, by golly, you’d best vote Democrat.  An industry was born, and Barak Obama is poling the barge along.  Step up and get your pork, Ms. Martin.

I give you capitalism.  Capitalism will find a way.  It will find a way through the onslaught we are promised in the next four years by either candidate’s over-zealous and mis-guided environmental whackiness. 

It will find a way through pork barrel spenders of whichever party.  It will find a way, because even in China, where the people are subjugated to the unfettered vagaries of socialist control, capitalism is alive and kicking.  The markets are capitalist in China as long as the government says it is OK, though the labor is socialist, just like the Democrats want here. 

We are better off than China, Ms. Martin, in case you need me to tell you that.  I figure you may, because your “argument” is pure hope, with no substance.  No point except that you have been hoping for a long time for someone Barak Obama would like you to think he is.  And you do.  He promises change, and you want it badly.  The change you want, Ms. Martin, is most likely a change away from some fetid, stinking pile of something the Democrats are knee-deep in after having initiated it and tried to fling it on the Republicans. 

That is, after all, an Alinskian socialist game; when you’re up to your ears in something that has gone very badly, quickly accuse your opponent loudly and often.  The press, by design and very effectively with Dewey’s mis-educated mind-numbed masses, perpetuates and enables this model.  That way when the leftists’ transgression becomes known, the public will think the other guy must have done it too because we’re all human, after all, and they have to overcome moral equivalence before getting to the bottom of the mess the leftists started. 

But Obama said, “Change,” and, “Hope,” and you are twitterpated, or at least smitten with his grandiose oratorical style.  His change and his hope are not the change you are hoping for.  He wants to change us into a free lunch for the world, and his socialism would destroy our manufacturing and trading capacity.  He, like any socialist trying to institute another fascist regime, is looking for a war or a moral equivalent of war.  Just imagine, if we could get the president to believe the sky is falling and he needs to buy umbrellas for the people, and a majority of the people to believe they need to support the president in the effort.  If one could be put in charge of the manufacture and distribution of umbrellas, he’d be in high cotton. 

War?  Not Obama.  At least not the Iraq war.  Not after he grandstanded against it and has proclaimed that he would sell our great servicemen and women down the river in a heartbeat to pull out on a date-certain.  Not even after he proclaimed he would not pull them out before 2016.  Not even after he proclaimed that he would pull them out within 10 months of being elected – or taking office.  Or whatever was pragmatic on the given day. 

No.  Not war.  But the moral equivalent of war would serve just as well.  A great depression, or even a noticeable recession would do.  If the socialists could only find a way to get the juggernaut of our economy off balance, siphon off a not-so-small fortune, and pull the rug out from under a sitting Republican lame-duck president with it, a smart progressive Democrat could just waltz into the White House and set up shop nationalizing everything from the banks to housing, and next they’d take over manufacturing, trucking, and Wal-Mart.  And the people would line up to join the Peace Corps and the Conservation Corps and the newly founded IRS Enforcement Branch.  We’ll need the IRSEB to ensure all the new taxes are paid because we just have to pay for all that glorious patriotic nationalizing.  Not that our great leader hoped to raise taxes at all.  Nor did he want to change our economy to socialism, but it had to be done, for our own good.  And we all want this because the government has done so many things efficiently and turned a great profit at… (insert the sound of crickets here)

We are an exceptional society of free people in the United States of America.  We are not exceptional individually, unless compared with somewhere like North Korea, where socialists deprive the people of the nutrition they need to grow to full stature at least physically, let alone thrive.  It is not because we Americans are superior genetic specimens, but because our Godly forefathers, steeped in genius and lucidity of thought that escapes most today, wrought for us a government. 

They wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

They wrote, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…”

Those are sentiments, Ms. Martin, worth electing a president over.  Which one of the candidates will work hardest and most effectively to preserve the exceptional environment into which you and I were born to thrive?  Which one will best give you unencumbered access to the freedoms and opportunities our founders fought and died for? 

One will try to guarantee outcomes by taxing some who have earned to give to those who have not.  One has fought and suffered to preserve freedom.  One has taken advantage of bureaucracy and made empty promises to the people of South Chicago as pawns in a shell game to use influence and our tax dollars for political gain.  One has a nice house in a trendy neighborhood gotten, at least in part, with money and influence given by a “supporter”.  One has many houses because of his hard work and his wife’s family’s hard work, and therefore he understands property ownership rights.  One considers life sacred and children a responsibility he can and will gladly take on, even if birthed by someone besides himself and his wife.  One considers children an inconvenience if they are born to someone who was planning to kill the baby with the assistance of a doctor – and he is OK with that.  One’s character is well known, and it is imperfect.  One’s character is not well known, and it is intentionally hidden to protect the poor judgment of that one.  Is that racist?

We need to elect a proven leader to get us out of the economic mess we’ve been hood-winked into by these congressional chairs whose oversight needs to be brought under scrutiny.  We do not need someone who has proven ready to take political donations and advice from the people who are fleecing us.   

In 1992 we got change.  A conservative majority was split by Ross Perot and we wound up with a self-interested governor with a thing for secretaries and interns for a president – and the socialists claimed they had some kind of mandate “from the American people.”  But I suppose you thought him awesome, because he was a smooth talker, too.  So did Kathleen Willey et. al.

We need hope and change, Ms. Martin.  I’m sad to say your candidate would leave us all with small change in our pockets and hope that the next president could be at least as good as President Bush was, for a change.