I have lived long enough to be aware of and read about other leaders who have decided to “change the world.” Some called themselves Communists and some called themselves Socialists, which has always struck me as different labels on the same can of beans. In both cases, the leaders of a powerful federal government decide what is best for other people.   

The first of these in modern times was Lenin, and he did change his country, he effectively destroyed a fledgling democracy. His word was Communism, an idea in which all the power belonged to the people, but in reality rested in him and a powerful, privileged, leadership. Then he was ousted by Stalin, who used military power to take over Russia and much of Eastern Europe. In the process, he killed hundreds of thousands who opposed him. As his power spread in Europe, the number killed increased to millions, mostly among the working middle-class. But the indolent and the criminal classes did not profit either, he established re-education camps in Siberia, where they learned to work for a living – or starve.  

A second person who set out to change his country and the world was Hitler. His dogmatism was Socialism. (Nazi stood for “National Socialist Party.) Following his election to leadership in the then Democracy of Germany, he used his goon squads to silence dissidents: early victims, who were imprisoned and executed, included the handicapped, Masons, peace loving Christians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and more than 800 Protestant ministers. Finally he turned his attention to the Jews. It was all for the good of the nation. He and those about him knew what was good for all. The consequence was catastrophe for Europe.

Mao knew what was best for the people of China. He executed over twenty million Chinese and, over the years, led the nation into poverty. It was only after his death, with the slow introduction of capitalism, which permits people to decide for themselves what is best for them, that prosperity returned for many, but it has been slow. 

Castro promised change. He was young, handsome and an excellent speaker – like Hitler. The people of Cuba needed change, and supported him. It was only after he gained control of the nation that they realized they no longer enjoyed the freedom to determine their own lives. Castro knew what was best. More than a million fled the nation and the others now live in poverty. Not, of course, the leadership. As in all Socialist (Communist) nations, the leaders live privileged lives in prosperity. 

Now Chavez has decided he knows what is best for Venezuela. Young, handsome and an excellent speaker, he won leadership. At first, the country prospered as Chavez reaped the profits of capitalism, now it is sinking into economic despair as industry after industry is taken over and directed by the government, but Chavez and the elite with whom he has surrounded himself still know what is best – and prosper.

Now we have Obama. Like Lenin, Hitler, Castro and Chavez, Obama is young, handsome and a marvelous speaker. He has been quoted as saying he will change the nation and the world. All of the major media supported him, and he won the Presidency. This has made me wonder how he might be expected to change the nation – and the world. This worries me.

Does it give the Obama Maniacs any pause for thought that Fidel Castro, who has led Cuba into dictatorship and poverty, and Hugo Chavez, who is working diligently to do the same for Venezuela have been praising Obama’s initiatives?

The Democrats and Republicans, excluding a few Republicans, in the House have passed a bill levying a 90% tax on bonuses given to the unsuccessful leaders of AIG, a bonus which was specifically approved in a bailout bill passed by the Democrats. This is frightening. First the government hands out, then the government punishes for accepting the handout. If this latest bill, which authorizes the punishment of people who obeyed Congressional law, is not challenged and defeated in the courts, what does it mean for the rest of us? Will it be the right of the county council or state government to raise the taxes on my home and twenty-five acres to an unpayable amount and then confiscate my land because I have not paid that money in the past years when I paid in full the taxes they had assessed? Ex Post Facto laws are clearly ruled illegal in our Constitution. You cannot punish a person for a crime which was not a crime when they committed it. This newest Congressional Bill is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights and a threat to all of us.

To date, we, taxpayers, have given 17.4 billion dollars to General Motors and Chrysler. They are now in line to receive 21.6 billion more dollars. Automotive leaders have stated that they may require “considerably more” money. In effect, Congress is requiring taxpayers to pay for automobiles they don’t wish to purchase. The only consolation to those, like me, who drive small, inexpensive cars, is that while we are helping pay for those expensive cars, indirectly increasing the cost of the cars we purchased, the same thing is being done to those who purchased the more expensive Detroit cars. 

I have been watching the mislabeled “Employee Free Choice Act” as it receives Democratic support. There are some, like me, old enough to remember walking by houses to see the blood stains of non-union workers who were attacked by union thugs – union thugs, not necessarily union members. I also recall one of my mother’s friends whose husband, a union machinist, who spoke up criticizing the leadership during a union meeting. He never had employment again. If anyone thinks that some person, paid to increase union membership (perhaps an ACORN thug), is not going to pay attention to someone who publicly documents his desire NOT to join the union in writing, they have little knowledge of either history or human nature. 

Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, is pushing to have casinos in Nevada included in the “stimulus” bill because they permit, on occasion, non-profit organizations to use their meeting rooms for free. I suspect some interesting accountancy is involved here. First, the casinos can deduct a large amount from their taxes for permitting the “free” use of unused meeting rooms and then they can profit from the money these people spend at their gambling tables and in their restaurants. Now, Senator Reid wishes to give them a few hundred million taxpayer dollars as a reward. This is, of course, only for the public good, although Mr. Reid may receive a few hundreds of thousands of dollars for his campaign funds.

Nancy Pelosi is the most fascinating of our leaders however. In a time of crisis, when our national leaders were under attack, she, as Speaker of the House and third in line for the Presidency, received the right to use military aircraft without charge. The crisis is past, but Speaker Pelosi continues to enjoy weekly or semi-weekly trips from DC to California on these privileged aircraft. She has expanded this usage to include relatives, such as children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces and others. Shouldn’t her friends and relatives be reimbursing the government – known as taxpayers – for the price of first class commercial tickets for this privileged service?

Pelosi also continues to pursue the “fairness” doctrine, hoping to get it passed into law, which is probable considering the heavy Democratic majorities in both House and Senate. It will apply, of course, only to radio at this time, the one media which is open to all political persuasions. Newspapers and television “news” programs which elected President Obama and these Democratic majorities will be immune. My question is, if she successfully muzzles the voice of the people on radio, will she then censor the Internet? 

In the meantime, President Obama continues to do what he does best, romping around the nation, at taxpayer expense, showering praises on himself and raising money for the next election. It is a good thing Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are running the nation so thoughtfully and so well in his absence. 

If people in business are required to give back money they haven’t earned, how about Congress?