Friday, March 14, 2008


In November some Americans will go to the polls to choose who will steer this country for the next four, and possibly eight years. More importantly, we will choose one of two lifestyles for the next generation -Liberty or Socialism.

This is, in fact, the fundamental difference between the two political parties: Liberty and Socialism.

If either of the Democrats wins the presidency we will see the Chief Executive of the nation steering us into socialism with plans for larger government doing more for the people (therefore, the people doing less.) Hillary Clinton calls it “Shared prosperity with shared responsibility.

Listen to her own words as she gave a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, May 29, 2007, outlining what she called her "progressive vision to aid the middle class [and] address rising income inequality." Here are her exact words, in context:

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

She rejects the idea of an “on your own” society. In other words, she rejects individual liberty that offers the freedom to succeed and necessarily implies the freedom to fail. That is simply the nature and essence of liberty. The Marxist idea of “shared responsibility for shared prosperity” was tried in the Soviet Union and it didn’t work. It requires control of the population and thus a loss of liberty. For example, the Clinton Health Plan requires the participation of everyone. By force of law you will be required to participate in a national health care plan whether you want to or not. That is not liberty; That is government control or totalitarianism.

About our free market system, the system that has produced the most prosperous society on the face of the earth, she said,

“Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.”

In other words, “free” markets must be controlled by government to promote “our” values, etc. Well, free markets that are controlled are no longer free. Look at the failed Soviet Union if you want to see what a controlled economy produces. Even The Chinese are now freeing up more of their economy because they realize the fallacy of a “managed” economy. A true free market philosophy affirms the role of government as being limited to providing the atmosphere in which markets may thrive, rather than trying to manage the market to make it thrive. The very essence of a free market system is freedom from government control, even if you do call it “management.”


Barak Obama certainly does represent “change.” But I’m not sure the kind of change he has in mind is one that our children will benefit from. Besides his big government solutions that would effectively put underprivileged blacks and whites on the government plantation, it is questionable whether or not he will advocate for the good of the American people, or for the good of Africa.

He has known “friendly” associations with anti-American extremists, and his wife said she was never proud of America until her husband had a chance to run for President.

Looking at all the circumstantial evidence, one could reasonably surmise that the change they want is for a different America. His presidency may, in fact, represent a coup by a radical left wing African socialist-nationalist.

This is what he believes as a member of Trinity United Church as represented on the church web site:

"An unabashedly black congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa . "An African people, 'true to our native land, the mother continent, the
cradle of civilization."

If he tries to separate himself from his church’s doctrines, then he can only be categorized as a hypocrite and a liar, because the word non-negotiable leaves no doubt that this is one of the foundational tenets of this church and those who would be members must ascribe to this belief. Remember, it’s “non-negotiable.” It is uncharacteristic of a Christian Church to claim allegiance to any nation or continent, since we are members of the Kingdom of God, however this church clearly promotes the supremacy of Africa, and makes no mention of the United States. Could there be reasonable doubt as to where Obama’s allegiance may lie? I think so.

We are not advocating for or against the election of any person or political party. We are simply trying to provoke citizens to think so they can make intelligent decisions at the voting booth. It just may be that Americans want to try socialism, in which case they should vote for Clinton. They may want an African nationalist at the helm, in which case they should vote for Obama. After all, ours is a government of the people. The masses have been hoodwinked before. There is a reason why our founding fathers opted for a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. They understood how the masses can be easily swayed by a charismatic personality, or by the enticement of self interests.

Next November’s election will be the most important in my lifetime. It will set the direction for this nation for the next generation. Will it be liberty, or socialism? The choice will be ours. I pray, we as a people, will make the right one. Get out and vote, and encourage others to fulfill their responsibility to their country as part of their responsibility to God.