The receipt of the third anonymous letter has prompted me to create this page. 

There are naïve (or uninformed or stupid?) people who think we should support a ‘sitting’ president irrespective of the damage we perceive his polices will inflict on America (and its constitution). I absolutely disagree with that notion. 

President Barack Hussein Obama is a socialist. What is socialism? 

Here’s the Webster Dictionary’s definition: 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

From the Encyclopedia Britannica: 

A social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor. As a result, terms such as individual freedom and equality of opportunity may be meaningful for capitalists but can only ring hollow for working people, who must do the capitalists’ bidding if they are to survive. As socialists see it, true freedom and true equality require social control of the resources that provide the basis for prosperity in any society.

What does socialism mean for America?
1.    An ever-expanding / ever-controlling government
2.    Individualism replaced by subservience to government
3.    Erosion of individual liberties, rights and incentives
4.    Institutionalized mediocrity
5.    Cultural decay
6.    Plummeting standard of living

The socialist argument is pathetic. They vilify the rich and view them as anti-social. The rich are to be punished rather than something to aspire to. With Democrats the definition of ‘rich’ is a moving target. This ‘flexibility’ enables them to target whomever they deem needs to be taken down a notch or two.

Small business owners, entrepreneurs, inventors and pioneers of industry spawn jobs and provide millions of people with opportunities to achieve their own dreams. Ford, Microsoft, Apple, Hallmark Cards, Home Depot, Wal-Mart and Johnson & Johnson all started with an idea. Today they are household names.

The government with few exceptions does not create products that have the capacity to grow an economy let alone revolutionize our way of life. The socialist government only cares about its retention and growth of power and control.

In the name of equality they seek to artificially limit a people’s ability to improve their lot in life. The socialist’s are happy with a stagnant middle class that is forever dependent upon the government for their source of success. However, that success will be monitored and limited. They can’t have anyone getting ‘uppity’. Does that sound familiar?

Socialism is in some ways like racism in America before the era of Martin Luther King, Jr. In that day the black population had a designated place in society and they damned well had better known where that was and dared not seek to rise above it. With socialism the same racist concept applies but now it’s covering the entire population (with the exception of those that curry favor with the socialist government).

As America continues to rid itself of one form of despicable racism the Obama administration seeks to institute another type. It’s not about the color of one’s skin this time around but about one's ability to avoid government enslavement in the form of addictive, dehumanizing socialist womb-to-tomb programs.

To not need government is now considered the new ‘uppity’. Being ‘uppity’ means you are too independent for the good of the 'state' and would give other people the dangerous notion (dangerous only to the ongoing existence of socialism) that they too might be able to prosper without ‘mother’ government. 

I vehemently oppose any governmental entity that legislatively stands in the way of my right and ability to ‘make my mark’. I also reject the idea that my achievement and its rewards are somehow undeserved and therefore, must be 'redistributed' to those who have not earned it. This will make life more 'fair' for everyone in the mind of the socialist.  

Socialism suffocates and eventually kills the human spirit. Capitalism enlivens, encourages and enables the natural human desire for self-fulfillment.

President Obama and the Democrat Congress is the embodiment of socialism.

The author of the third anonymous letter says that while he/she did not vote for Obama (I wonder about that) we still need to support him. That makes no sense. If you supported McCain prior to the election how could you now support Obama after the election. Just because he is now our President? Not reason enough for me.

I have a set of core beliefs that don’t ‘go away’ just because my side lost. To suspend my beliefs in order to ‘support’ Obama would be akin to an attack on myself. A person willing to do that (such as you) either has nimble core values to begin with or is so blatantly uninformed that he/she doesn’t know what Obama represents and intends to do. Moral indifference and ignorance is the manure in which socialism thrives.

What category does the writer of the third anonymous letter fall into – a person with weak-kneed core values or one who is dangerously ignorant?

This writer goes on to say, “If we root for him to fail, where does that leave us?” This statement is incredibly naïve but it does answer my previous question. This writer is both ‘flexible’ in the upholding of his/her core values and is sadly, woefully uninformed.

This writer believes it is noble to support the winning side even if it means relinquishing their personal convictions – such as they are. This person sounds like the so-called political ‘moderate’ to me. People who call themselves ‘moderates’ are ‘liberals in waiting’ who can’t take a position on a damn thing until the battle of ideas is all but over. They step in as the ‘last shot is fired’ so to speak and contribute nothing to the process but their vote.

These are gutless, appeasing, do-gooder personality types who shamelessly lecture those on the ‘front lines’ where the battle for America and its constitution rages.

Read once again the definition of socialism that I provided at the beginning. This is what Obama will attempt to bring to America. He’s off to a good start with the recent passage of the no-stimulus bill. How could I or anyone with a modicum of understanding about socialism ever want Obama to succeed. Obama MUST fail. America’s existence as a great country and the economic freedom she engenders are in the balance.

“After the election, I had a talk with my kids about respecting him even though we didn’t vote for him. How can I enforce that while driving by your house everyday?” says the writer of the third anonymous letter.

I suggest you teach your children about the Constitution of the United States of America where it plainly states we have freedom of speech. It doesn’t end at the conclusion of an election cycle.

I respect the office of the President of the United States and I respect a sitting President if merited. I did not respect Senator Obama nor do I now respect President Obama. His associations with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Resko are three reasons to question his personal character. His socialist ideas are lethal to the US constitution and to the American culture. That is not a president I can respect or support.  

The ‘writer’ asked me to “hang an American flag”. I would love to, but to do so would make my NObama flag more vulnerable to another theft. Does the ‘writer’ promise not to steal my NObama flag again for it is you I believe that is behind this harassment? I have seen you parked in front of my house trying to figure out how my new NObama flag is secured to the flagpole. Hey, you have to do your homework if you are going to pull off another successful theft. The only time you’ve been seen next to an American flag (other than mine) is when it was burning or you were standing on it.

As part of our neighborhood enhancement program our homes association hired a contractor to paint reflective address numbers on our curbs. At no extra charge they also offered to paint the American flag so you could show your support for our troops or our country. I noticed that numerous neighbors opted out of this offer. They are part of the ‘blame America first’ crowd. You are no doubt among them. 

The ‘writer’ also said I should “have some class and remove the (NObama) flag”. I am showing the courage of my convictions while you and your counterparts hide behind anonymous letters, anonymous complaints to the City of Overland Park and thievery. You are the classless ones.

Karl Marx’s definition of peace was the absence of opposition. It sounds like you would qualify for a cabinet post in Obama’s Marxist administration.