I am beginning to think America deserves what is inevitably going to happen if Barack Obama becomes president. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be a literal liberal thugocracy in Washington, America will have voted a true blue socialist into the highest office in the land. Barack Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and has very publicly and in no uncertain terms announced his economic plans for the country. Very few people seem to grasp the gravity of the situation currently brewing. These same people also seem to fail to comprehend some of the most basic economic truths.

Raising taxes is not the right thing to do. Raising taxes on small businesses making over $250,000, regardless of any promised tax break for operating said small business (How contradictory is that?) is absurd given the country's current economic state. However, this simple concept seems to evade the Obama Christ and his throngs of diciples. When a business incurs costs (Read: taxes) greater than those for which they planned, more often than not they simply transfer that cost onto the consumers. Businesses can only remain in business if they are profitable. Well, that is, of course, unless they are a bank that offered ridiculously dangerous loans to people who couldn't be trusted with safety scissors. But I digress.

It seems the trendy thing to do at the moment is to decry capitalism and the greed that invariably powers it. Greed caused the meltdown on Wall Street. Greed is what almost led the global financial markets to collapse. Greed is evil. Ok, sure. I'll grant you greed is sometimes evil. Greed leads people to do horrible things to other people. But that is only one side of the story. Greed, or, more accurately, the desire to succeed and become wealthy, has led to many of mankind's greatest discoveries. Insomuch as greed leads to evil, it also leads to good. It is really hard to have success without desire. If you stifle someone's desire, you inhibit their ability to succeed.

This all comes back to Barack Obama and his desire to "spread the wealth around". This, I believe, will ultimately lead America into the darkest period of its history. When you take away a person's desire and motivation, what reason does he or she have to try to be successful? If Obama wants to increase taxes on those people making more than $250,000, why would anyone strive to make that much money? It is as if he is punishing an individual's success. This seems to go against everything for which America stands. Individual achievement is no longer something to laud, it is something to be hidden and suppressed, lest it be discovered and taxed.

If Obama is elected and the Democrats in the Senate obtain a filibuster-proof majority, prepare for four years of rubber-stamped, institutionalized socialism the likes of which this country has never seen. Prepare for the rise of unions and the villainization of the business owner. The upper class will be increasingly be seen as not paying their fair share in taxes, even though the top 1% of economic earners in this country will pay upwards of 90% of the country's taxes. It doesn't matter really. The poor and middle classes will demand the upper class pay more. Sixty, no, 70% of their income will go to the IRS, all the while the poor and middle classes, which often pay little to no taxes at all, will continue to get increasingly larger rebate checks from the government.

This generation will become known as the entitlement generation. Personal responsibility and achievement will be cast aside for the greater benefits the government can provide. And Obama and his cadre of liberal yes-men will be all too happy to provide it. I know it seems like government can't get any larger and more intrusive than it already is, but just wait. I have complete faith in the power of the Obama Administration and the do-nothing liberal Congress to expand the government into heretofore unseen levels.

Oh, there will be voter's remorse. Once Obama's shine dulls and we tire of his eloquent, yet empty speeches, we will realize we have elected a socialist as the president of America and the leader of the free world. And we will have to endure four years of hell and suffer irrevocable damage to our country's economy and our livelihoods before we can rectify our incredible shortsightedness.

But, like I said, it might be good for the country. We need a wake-up call. We need to realize we can't place our faith in every snake oil salesman that comes into town making promises he has no intention or power to keep. Platitudes and niceties sound good in a speech, but "Change" and "Hope" do not make for good legislation or a platform to run for president. However, we are a fickle and all together unintelligent people prone to fits of fancy and who are often caught up the latest trend. It seems that George Bernard Shaw was right when he said "Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve."

Election years always seem to bring out the worst in people. The last few elections in particular have been exceptionally charged with polarity. Perhaps the shock comes from my age and the fact that this year is only the third presidential election I can honestly recall with any clarity, but people seem angrier than ever. This anger often leads to irrational behavior on both sides. Friends will engage in heated debates, often calling the very nature of their relationship into question. A person's common sense is almost summarily ignored during the progressively increasing amount of time known as a presidential campaign season.

Everyone is guilty of this. Heinous acts are committed on both sides of the debate. However, it does seem like one group, in particular, plays to a more juvenile and all too disgraceful manner of trying to convince people of the folly of their political ways. I am speaking, of course, about liberals.

Just recently, I returned from a vacation with my girlfriend and her family in Las Vegas. Naturally, a good time was had by all. We took in a show, did some gambling, enjoyed some fine dining, and generally enjoyed ourselves. Once we returned home, however, our moods changed slightly. My girlfriend and her family are very political and staunchly Republican. Their front yard is adorned with various signs for conservative candidates for office and propositions backed by conservatives. Yes, they had a McCain/Palin sign there too. It was a rather unique sign that was purchased with the family's own money. Sadly, this sign was now gone.

Not only was their McCain/Palin sign gone, but so was every other McCain/Palin sign on their entire street. The neighborhood in which they live is a very conservative one and had many yards with McCain/Palin signs. This is not the first time the issue of stolen yard signs has been addressed. Indeed, a quick Google search revealed it is fairly common. Other, more infantile actions have also been reported. Fox News reported on a man who had dog poop thrown in the bed of his truck because of the large McCain sign on his truck. When the man and his family confronted the culprit, all he could say to explain himself was that he "hates McCain."

I do not understand these type of tactics. Liberals are supposed to be the bastions of acceptance and tolerance. They are supposed to respect the views of others and welcome diversity. They, ostensibly, defend free speech and the unhindered flow of ideas. Those who pay attention know this to be almost universally false. Liberals welcome debate, as long as the debate is orchestrated according to their demands. They welcome free speech, as long as no one is offended. They are beholden not to the Constitution or the American people, but to the radical special interest groups that regularly fill their coffers. They would rather stifle debate and admonish nay-sayers than to encourage true dialogue and bi-partisan agreement.

I know that some Obama signs have been stolen. I know that there are some on the conservative side who have acted childishly towards Obama supporters. But the point I am trying to make is that there is simply a difference in mentality for most liberals. There is no decency. There is no respect. Those in the liberal mainstays like California, New York, and New England believe themselves to be far better educated and, thus, know better for the country than the vast, unwashed masses of the red states. They can't respect us because they truly believe they are better than us. We just don't know. We do not understand. They have to save us from ourselves.

The troubling thing about this mentality and these tactics are that they aren't just the tactics of the liberal elite, they are the the brick and mortar that any true liberal uses to establish a foundation upon which to view the world. This is the problem. You with your yard signs and bumper stickers just don't understand the implications of your associations. Therefore, the compassionate, understanding, tolerant liberals have a duty to protect you from yourself and remove the offending material. It isn't really your fault. After all, you are a Republican.

A little over a year ago the Supreme Court of the United States decided in a 5-4 ruling that a citizen’s private property may be seized by local governments through eminent domain to make way for non-traditional public works projects. No longer are roads, bridges and other municipal developments the sole outcome of eminent domain. Now, shopping centers and condominium complexes can also be built on land obtained by the government. The court said in the majority ruling that these establishments can generate a lot of income and help revitalize an impoverished section of a city. But at what cost?

Local governments can now take away your home or your place of business because they believe putting something else in your plot would be more beneficial to society as a whole. Now, you may be a very altruistic individual who only cares for the good of the many, but I am not so charitable. The government rarely pays just compensation for the land they seize – fair market value is a laughable concept.

So, what can stem this tide of insanity from our nation’s highest court? Voting yes on Prop. 90. Prop. 90 will effectively stop the abuse of eminent domain by local governments. If it is passed, there will be greater restrictions placed on the use of eminent domain. Governments will not be able to sell or give your land to private developers, except in cases where public safety is concerned. When and if a government body condemns a piece of land, the government will have to occupy that land or lease it out for public use.

It will also protect homeowners and business owners from any laws enacted by state and local legislatures in the future that would seek to give more power to eminent domain. Also, any property that has already been condemned through eminent domain but has not yet been developed must be offered for resale to the previous owner or the previous owner’s heir before any development may take place.

Finally, probably the most important article of this bill is the one which defines just compensation. The text of the bill states, “…just compensation shall be defined as the sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily…as if the property had never been taken.” Also, fair market value is described as, “…the highest price the property would bring on the open market.”

So, what does that all mean? It means if the government does take your land for whatever reason, it will be forced to compensate you for exactly how much your home is worth. It will not be able to lowball the price of your home or your property. The government cannot give you the average price for a house in your area or the lowest price. They will have to give you the highest price your home can obtain. Effectively, you will not lose any money if they take your house or business. That seems a lot fairer than the policy they have now.

Vote yes on 90. It will protect your property and your future. Because you know the government won’t.

Free speech is one of our most sacred rights in this country. Our founding fathers seemed to think so too, making sure it was granted to us in the first amendment to our constitution. People have defended their right to speak freely almost since the birth of our nation. Those who attended the first continental congresses undoubtedly met with great resentment and frustration because everyone was able to voice their own opinion. Everyone had his own ideas on how best the government should run.

But despite the seemingly endless arguments, those in the congress decided to ratify the first 10 amendments to the constitution they so painstakingly drafted. It is not surprising, then, that within the first amendment is the constitutionally protected right to free speech.

So why the quick history lesson? Because last week someone's right to free speech was trampled in a very public setting, and the mainstream news media all but ignored it.

On October 4, the College Republicans at Columbia University in New York invited Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist to speak at their school. The auditorium where he was to speak housed about 350 people, many of whom were staunch opponents to Gilchrist's group. They held up signs and shouted slogans like "Workers of the world unite! Same struggle, same fight!" and "Minutemen, Nazis, KKK! Racists, fascists, go away!" according to WorldNetDaily.

Marvin Steward, a minister and a member of the Minuteman Project who happens to be black, spoke before Gilchrist and was met with racial epithets and taunts. Protestors shouted the N-word at him and called him a sell-out and an Uncle Tom. They called him a racist and many turned their backs to him toward the end of his speech. Undaunted, and slightly amused, Stewart finished speaking and proceeded to introduce Gilchrist.

When Gilchrist took the stage, the crowed seemed to erupt into a frenzy. Their chanting became louder, their sign waving became more forceful, and eventually about 20 or so protestors stormed the stage and effectively silenced Gilchrist for the night. Luckily for Gilchrist, campus security was able to rush him off stage and remove him and the other speakers from harm's way quickly.

Once on stage, the protestors unraveled a banner that read "No One Is Ever Illegal" in both English and Arabic. They chanted and pumped their fists for a few more minutes before campus security emptied the auditorium.

What happened to this country? What happened to our national dialogue? More often than not, this type of behavior is what I see when two opposing groups meet to debate or present ideas. There is no such thing as respect anymore. People believe what they want to believe, and if they are presented with something that calls those beliefs into question, they vehemently, and sometimes violently, oppose it.

Regardless of anyone's position on the issue of illegal immigration and the Minuteman Project, everyone should be outraged by the actions of these student protestors. Gilchrist was speaking at a university. He wasn't speaking at an illegal immigration rally or a Minuteman Project sponsored event, he was speaking somewhere where the free exchange of ideas is supposed to be encouraged. At one of our nation's premier schools, a group of students who didn't like what a speaker had to say effectively shouted, "We don't want to hear it, and we're not going to let you say it."

But this is the direction free speech has taken in recent years. People will stand up and defend their First Amendment right with every ounce of energy they have. But to most people, free speech is a one-way street. They believe they are entitled to it, but in turn don't believe others aren't granted the same freedom. They, like the protestors at Columbia, will trumpet their speech freedoms, all the while infringing on others' speech freedoms, like Jim Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart's.

This is not healthy for our nation. Our national dialogue is on life support, and every incident like this brings us closer and closer to pulling the plug and letting it die. The First Amendment grants everyone the right to free speech. Someone can't squelch someone else's right to free speech just because he or she doesn't like what the other person has to say. This, especially, should never happen in an academic setting, where the free exchange of ideas is central to the learning experience.

A peaceful protest is one thing, but denying someone his right to free speech is appalling. We, as a nation, should be disgusted with the student protestors at Columbia University who felt their right to free speech was more important than everyone else's. Only through the synthesis of new and different ideas can we come to true understanding in this world. Incidents like this do nothing but hinder that process.

I’m getting a little tired of Muslims around the world overreacting to comments made about or against them. It seems that now, more than ever, people have to be overly cautious when discussing Islam, its founder and its followers. It’s gotten to the point where Pope Benedict XVI, giving an academic lecture at Regensburg University in Germany about reason and faith in the West, was forced to give an apology for perceived wrongdoing under threat of violence and mayhem by the Muslim communities around the world.

This lecture was academic in nature and given at an academic institution. The only part of it that sparked this nonsensical outrage was one sentence in which the pope quotes 14th Century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who was speaking with a Persian scholar. The offending passage reads, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

This one sentence, which was not even the pope’s, sparked a string of indignation from the Islamic world. Leaders of Islamic countries publicly denounced the pope and threatened to cut diplomatic ties with the Vatican. A leading Muslim cleric in Somalia urged his followers to “hunt down” the pope because of what he said. Other leaders demanded the pope apologize for his comments and claimed violence may ensue if he did not.

And ensue it did. The Orange County Register reported Sunday that protestors in the West Bank firebombed two Catholic churches in the town of Nablus. The group claiming responsibility for the bombings said the attacks were in response to the pope’s statements.

Does this make any sense? Two churches were bombed and threats and denouncements poured in from almost every Islamic country in the world because of a lecture the pope gave at a university where he quoted a ruler who lived hundreds of years ago. He only used the quote to make the point that one cannot force people to believe in a religion. He was trying to say that religions shouldn’t employ violence in their proselytizing.

Apparently, many in the Islamic world don’t hold that belief. All too often, it seems, the Muslim communities around the world react with violence or threats of violence when they are confronted with something with which they do not agree. Think back to the controversy a few months ago that centered on a Danish newspaper printing caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. This triggered threats of death and violence against the publishers of the newspaper and elicited vandalism and destruction of many Danish embassies throughout the Islamic world.

And these instances are not the only ones on record.

Any criticism leveled against the Islamic world is automatically met with outrage and indignity. To put it in simpler terms, the Islamic community is like a spoiled child. If the Western world does something the Islamic world doesn’t like, the Muslim communities around the world will throw a collective tantrum. They will huff and puff and stomp around the room demanding apologies and passing on threats like it’s nobody’s business. They’ll claim the Western world simply does not understand them.

And they’re right. I don’t understand them. For a religion commonly described by its followers as one of peace, I don’t seem much of it. For as much as I want to understand it, I can’t seem to wrap my brain around it. The Islamic world sends out too many mixed messages, and the recent controversy involving the pope has only muddied the waters further.

Rational people don’t react to something they disagree with by threatening to or actually blowing it up. Rational people don’t riot over cartoons in a newspaper. Rational people don’t threaten the leader of a world religion and firebomb his churches because of a lecture he gave at a university that was taken completely out of context.

For as much understanding as the Islamic world demands from the West, is it too much to ask for the same consideration? Is it too much to expect the leaders of the Islamic world to not act like a spoiled child in the candy isle? I don’t think so. But then again, I’m a rational person.

I love politics. I love talking about politics and reading about politics, and I wouldnt mind participating in the political process some day. Im one of those people most decent folk dread talking to because my conversations usually end up about politics or current events or any combination of the two. It really fascinates me. Politics has an effect on everything in life. Politics directly or indirectly influences health care, public safety, education, social programs and anything else one can imagine.

Despite its importance to everyday life, many people, especially college-age people, despise discussing politics. In our society, politics has become one of those taboo subjects people loathe bringing up in polite conversation. One only seeks to bring about arguments and alienation if he or she dares to broach the subject of our political process.

This creates a rather significant problem. People in todays society are encouraged more and more to vote. The most recent campaign to increase voter turnout I can recall was P. Diddys Vote or Die campaign for the 2004 presidential election, but it certainly wasnt alone. Others like Mtvs Rock the Vote have popped up seemingly every year to encourage young people to get out and vote to take control of and participate in their government.

But is this really a good idea?

As I have said many times before, an informed populace is the lifeblood of any democracy. But if people cannot take it upon themselves to become informed, do we really want them voting?

I am, by no means, a proponent of true democracy. Even if it were logistically possible to ensure every persons vote was counted with no chance of tampering, I still would be against it. Why, you ask? Because I dont believe everyone should vote. Now, I didnt say I dont believe everyone should be able to vote, I said I dont think everyone should vote.

Let me explain. When our forefathers started this grand experiment they called United States of America, they wanted to make sure that only white males who owned property could vote in elections. Im sure there were many reasons for this, and maybe some of those were less than noble. But the true reason for this, I believe, was that white males who owned property were the most likely people to stay informed about the politics and current issues of the day.

They were literate, well read and usually had experience in some form of statesmanship or another. In other words, they knew what was going on. They were the ideal people to be voting in elections that could have an impact on not only their individual states, but the fledgling country as a whole.

I think our forefathers had the right idea. They knew the general population was fickle and uninformed. If they allowed everyone to vote, who knows where our country would be right now.

The same is true today. There are legions of uninformed, undeserving people who vote based on political campaign commercials, name plates they see on the side of the road and billboards they pass by on the way home from work. This is not how a people get informed.

How many times have you voted for someone because you recognized his or her name? How many times have you seen a political attack ad and thought to yourself, I can't believe he/she would do such a thing, but then never research it to see if it were actually true? How many times have you voted for someone based solely on their looks?

I believe this happens far more often than it should. I dont trust most of my peers to make decisions for me, especially decisions that have long reaching consequences, because I know I care about these things more than 95 percent of the people in my age group. If they cant take the time out of their day to, at the very least, learn about politics, I dont want them voting in our elections.

Some things are far too important to leave in the hands of the unwashed masses. Sometimes people should just stay home on election day.

Partisan politics is killing America. We are a nation of Democrats and Republicans, and, by God, you had better be a member of one of those two parties if you wish to effect any real change in America. This two-party system has so polarized the country I fear we may never recover.

Lately this has become far more apparent.

President George W. Bush’s last two Supreme Court nominations were both highly contested by the Democratic Party. While John Roberts’ nomination was confirmed by the Senate 78-22, some of the Democratic Party’s most hard-line members still voted against him even though he was one of the most qualified nominees in recent history. These included Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, and Joseph Biden.

More controversial was Bush’s second nomination, Samuel Alito, whose confirmation fell almost completely down party lines. His confirmation of 58-42 was the one of the closest in the last century, second only to Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed 52-48.

Both of these men’s nominations were highly contested by the Democratic Party because of the nominees’ strong conservative viewpoints. They did not want to place anyone on the bench of the Supreme Court who did not agree with their political ideals, regardless of his qualifications or experience. But Supreme Court nominations are not the only recent events to highlight the perversion of our governmental system by partisan politics. One only has to look to the debate over border enforcement to see this problem in action.

The Sensenbrenner Bill, which, among other things, sought to strengthen the borders and criminalize illegal immigration, was passed in the House of Representatives 239-182, with only 36 Democrats supporting the final version of the bill, according to CNN.com. The debate over the Senate’s version of this bill raged on for weeks, with each party entrenching itself along the familiar sides of the issue – Democrats for illegal immigration, Republicans against it. Only a very few members of either party have braved crossing over to the other side, and the ones who have, like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., draw staunch criticism from their former allies.

It seems that any person, group or legislation that wishes to gain the support of one of the parties must first agree in principle with the viewpoints of that party, and vice-versa.

If you are a Democrat, you are a liberal and you support civil liberties, legalized abortion, gun control, social programs like Medicare and social security and the environment. If you are a Republican, you are a conservative and you support minimal government and reduced spending. You value individualism. You are in favor of the death penalty and against gun control.

These are your options, and you must choose wisely, for while the true party will bring you life, the false party will take it from you.

This is what we are left with in America. We have two vastly different parties in terms of ideology, and there is little hope in reconciling them. We are forced to make a choice – a choice that is often difficult – between two people who tell us the other is wrong and they are right. We are forced to decide which is the lesser of two evils because no one candidate perfectly reflects our own personal beliefs.

This is not democracy. When the government tells its people what their options are, it is called tyranny. In a true democracy, the people dictate to the government how they want the country run. Far too often, however, this is not the case.

From the very beginning of this great nation, our battles have been for democracy and the right to govern ourselves. Now, we rely on political parties to determine what values and ideals the country honors. This must end, and the only way that can happen is to vote.

Theodore Roosevelt once said, “A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.” Show your character in the next election. Tell the government that your will should be done, not the will of some political party. Make sure we keep Abraham Lincoln’s promise in the Gettysburg Address that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.