. . . his opponents will have only themselves to blame. He’s a weak and ineffective president whose only power comes from his opponents’ failures.

Yes, he has a army of zealous supporters who’ve organized, mainly via the Internet. But his leadership skills are demonstrably lousy, his main message is a proven falsehood and, most of all, his time in public office has revealed his flawed character. The only things he has going for him are his incumpency, a vicious and well-connected campaign manager in David Axelrod (who’s on record saying he’s proud of himself, not for getting a good president elected, but for getting a dark-skinned man elected as president), and, most of all, his opponents’ failures.

Nobody knows for sure what Obama really wants. The media–including FOX or other so-called “conservative” media–aren’t even going to ask him, let alone drill down on his answers when they’re contradicted by his actions. His actions suggest he wants power and wealth, but he runs on the political leftist ticket.

The political leftist ticket is shaky at best, populated primarily by people who merely want given to them that for with other people have worked. They favor regulation, but only if it allows them to get what other people have.

In other words, they don’t really want everybody to be poor. They want the wealth in the country transferred from those who have it to those who don’t, and they think Obama will do this for them.

I don’t think Obama has any intention of doing this, and I don’t think he ever did, but nobody has ever seriously challenged him on the obvious schism between what his supporters expect and what he intends to deliver.

Case in point: some labor unions, which at one time favored Obama, are now standing against him because his administration’s regulatory behavior is blocking the creation of union jobs. I’m talking about the Keystone Pipeline issue. The EPA and various environmental groups are blocking it, and Obama has refused to make a decision about it, and all of a sudden all these “regulations” don’t seem so attractive to at least some former Obama supporters.

If those who support Obama could get what they want without him, most of them–except those who support him becasue of his skin color–would abandon him.

The bottom line is this (and this is some “outside-the-box” thinking, so please be seated): “Capitalism,” as a social order, isn’t about self-interest or greed. Self-interest and greed are moral flaws. “Capitalism” is primarly about a free market: a country’s goods and services production remaining in the hands of private ownership. This freedom (as in “free” market) bears with it no small amount of responsibility; those who privately own and control the country’s goods and services production–and, subsequently, those who control the country’s wealth–have a responsibility to ensure that the country’s wealth is put to good use; namely, that too much of it doesn’t become accumulated in the hands of just a few people; that it benefits everybody.

That’s not happening in the United States. I could write a book about this. In plain language, those who have access to the wealth are accumulating it while their employees get screwed. Those with access to the wealth aren’t taking care of business in the country that gave them access to the wealth.

For example, the owners of the country’s largest retailer are collectively worth nearly (as of last year, according to Forbes) $85 billion, but they work their two million employees like farm animals, in most cases don’t even provide health insurance, and import most of their goods from foreign countries, thereby destroying American jobs. Meanwhile, they have more money–mostly in the form of stocks–than they can even count, let alone spend.

What a waste of the country’s resources. No wonder so many people want to vote for Obama.

For another example, the nation runs largely on fossil fuel. Gasoline and diesel prices have more than quadrupled since Clinton was in office. Those who privately own the retail gasoline and diesel companies have done nothing but profit from this, completely shirking their free-market responsibility to ensure that Americans get the gasoline and diesel fuel they need at affordable prices.

On more local and personal levels, everybody I know–and that is not hyperbole–complains that his or her employer has cut wages and increased workloads under the “difficult-economic-times” guise; meanwhile, we see our employers’ top executives granting themselves raises, bonuses, and “golf” and “cruise” seminars.

Don’t even get me started about the banks. They’re screwing people while their top exectives take home more money than they can count; certainly more than they need.

Then we have so-called “conservative” media voices defending this, as if “Capitalism” is a defense for moral failure, which greed and self-interest certainly are . . . and I’ll gladly take anybody to task who argues with that.

Greed and self-interest are failure, not success. “Capitalism” is about a “free market” that puts the majority of the nation’s wealth in private, rather than public sector hands, thus conferrng upon the private sector a responsibility to ensure that the “free market” is good for all people.

It has to be good for all the people. That’s common sense. It can’t be good for just the few. If a “free market” winds up being nothing more than a system by which very wealthy people can abuse the “freedom,” then it’s a failure.

Now, the “free market,” i.e. “capitalism,” has been enormously good for Americans and for just about everybody who’s come here. But over the past 20 years or so, it’s been failing. Its leaders–Ayn Rand’s “managers and industrialists”–have reinterpreted it to be all about their greed and self-interest, instead of the system by which a nation operates.

My boss is screwing me. My brothers’ and sisters’ and friends’ bosses are screwing them, while treating themselves like spoiled royalty. This isn’t “capitalism.” This is moral grotesque moral failure on a broad, comprehensive level; this is the failure of the “free market” system, i.e. “capitalism.”

Enter Obama–a tried and true despot–and the political left.

I can’t stand the man. He disgusts me. But so long as the “free market,” i,e, “capitalism,” continues to fail in its responsibilty to ensure that America gets what it needs, and Americans are well-taken care of, the alternative choice–putting the allocation of wealth and the nation’s goods and service production–in the hands of the public sector, seems like a good idea to most people.

The sad part is that, at least from his actions, Obama has no intention of re-allocating the wealth fairly. He just wants to tear America apart and accumulate vast wealth and power for himself, and he’ll be allowed to do so unfettered because for some reason the media–even the conservative media–don’t go after him and get him to some how reveal his true intentions.

Listen: our proper concern isn’t who the next president is. The president doesn’t run our economy. We have a “free market” economy: a “capitalist” economy, controlled by privately-owned companies.

These companies, and their CEOs, are our proper concern. They’re dropping the ball and opening the door to the political left: to public-sector ownership of our country’s wealth and goods and services production.

Right now we have a “free-market” or “capitalist” economy, and it’s worked very well, and it’s ours to lose. But if we don’t get our acts together and make sure our economy does what it’s supposed to do–ie meet America’s and Americans’ needs–it will be taken from us.

That’s what happened in Russia, China, Cuba, and Germany, and that’s surely what will happen here. We don’t need greedy, self-interested “managers and industrialists” who use “capitalism” to defend their moral flaws. We need wise, mature chief executives who ensure that the system that made them wealthy serves everybody well. Right now, we just don’t have that and, as a result, we’re in danger of giving our freedom away to despotic psychos like Obama and the irrational political system he touts.

I’m philosophically conservative and believe in a “capitalist” or “free market” economy, and I’m a heck of a lot more concerned about who’s running the companies that control my country’s wealth–because they’re the ones in control–than I am about who’s elected president.