Voters are wasting their time if they are looking at Obama’s economic plan to decide whether he is or is not a “socialist.”

As an introductory note,let me say that Pelosi and her team are also “socialists,” in what many perceive to be the negative sense of the word, so that is nothing new. In my view, their pressure on the big banks to make NINJA loans was a precursor of this financial meltdown, and the Republicans who tried to stop them were simply outnumbered.

History shows that radical left/communist leaders who have been democratically elected have never won the elections by offering their voters a communist economic plan. The reason is that a communist economic plan does not appeal to anybody in his sound mind. On the political level, freedom goes down the drain. On the economic level, communist governments take away the money and property of the wealthy, and keep it for themselves. They trickle down a miserly amount of that money to the entire population. Thus communism is the epitome of government-generated mass poverty. Examples of countries that fell into the communist trap are Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Russia, whose former president and current prime minister, Putin , is systematically moving the country back to communism.

What radical leftists do infallibly promise the people is a socialist economic plan, i.e., to “spread the wealth around” as Obama succinctly put it. Spreading the wealth is very appealing to the middle and low classes of countries going through an economic crisis. A “fair distribution of wealth” gives these voters what they yearn for the most: CHANGE. Unfortunately, this change never takes place. What actually happens is that a government elite takes all the wealth, and the rest of the population is forced to live at a substandard level. This kind of change may occur insidiously, especially when it is realized within a democracy.

While the economic plan cannot reveal a radical-leftist agenda, there are other ways to identify a radical leftist before he takes over a country, namely, by his tactics , his rhetoric , his demeanor , his associations [see [Odinga] ( ) , [Khalid al-Mansour] ( , Saul Alinsky , [ACORN] ( ] , and those who endorse him. It is difficult for many Americans to understand this truth. Since this is the first time America is faced with such a threat, its reaction, like that of every other country that has fallen for the first time, is one of unbelief and dismissal of this telling information regarding a radical-leftist candidate.

As one who has followed the shenanigans of the radical left for years, I could write extensively on why Obama fits the radical mold perfectly. Most voters may have already heard a lot of what I would tell them. However, many of them are missing the theoretical framework that gives a cohesive sense to all the disturbing information that is available about Obama. Moreover, they have not asked themselves some of the deeper questions. Many voters need to realize that if they want to see the big picture they need a broader range of vision, because it is NOT the economy, stupid. The economy only sets the stage. It is the diversion that takes voters’ eyes off the big picture, but more important, it is the sine qua non for radical change. That is why Obama wants voters to take their eyes off HIM and to focus ON THE ECONOMY.

If the economy is doing fairly well, everybody takes it for granted. The radical left can never win in a strong economy for a very simple reason: people will not feel attracted to what they will perceive as abstract change. Rather, they will focus on the concrete and pressing issues facing the country, whatever they may be. Here’s the proof: McCain was ahead in the polls before the financial crisis. When the financial meltdown occurred, I was flabbergasted. It was like waking up startled, but realizing it was not just a bad dream. That was the day Obama took the lead.

The McCain campaign is aware of this situation. However, it is constrained in its ability to disclose these issues by two factors. First, these will be perceived by some independents as mere political smears. Secondly, in a democracy it is the media’s job to serve as the branch of the people, by investigating and reporting all issues in a thorough and objective manner. To America’s disgrace, the major media outlets are sold out to Obama, either because they are liberal ideologues or because they have been infiltrated by radicals. Thus the media, with possibly one exception, has ridiculed, downplayed or concealed the truth about Obama. Given that the future of this country’s democracy is at stake, it is now up to the citizens who love America to spread the truth.