Barack Obama calls to mind several aspects of the Roman era.

First, he plans to tax the *rich* and put 40% of the country on a permanent welfare dole. This is different than food stamps, or other need based programs. He wants to put one part of the country to work for the simple benefit of others. It reminds me of imperial proscriptions, which - like the tax cut plan - showed no regard for traditional property protections.

And speaking of kleptocracy, let's not forget the world of Barack and Pals in Chicago, including Tony "the Fixer" Rezko. Could Obama rival Justinian? Will one of the reporters dumped from his press plane turn around and write a *secret history* like Procopius?

With regard to Obama, and his *aura,* it disturbs me more than a little. I don't mind people comparing themselves to Moses or Joshua. Martin Luther King Jr. did that. Norman and Michael Manley received similar comparisons in Jamaica. But this time, prominent citizens - beginning with Oprah Winfrey - consciously compared Obama to the second coming Jesus Christ, calling him the One they have been searching for. Others joined in, including Donna Brazile and Tom Brokaw, both of whom hectored others in insisting that Barack, through his community organizing, was comparable to Jesus. They also insisted Sarah Palin reminds them of Pontius Pilate. Will Obama, like Vespasian, discourage his followers from proclaiming him a god?

And speaking of Pilate, or for that matter Herod the Great, what can we say of Obama's intention to repeal the Hyde Amendment, federally fund abortion, and supercede state laws protecting third term viable fetuses? Talk about proscription. This is state sanctioned violence, pure and simple, even against those tiny people capable of living on their own.

I don't like this at all. If Obama wins, I will render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. And I will look forward to electing my next president.

I am referring to the tax cut plan. 95% of people get a rebate check, right? But 40% of the country pays no federal income tax. Ergo, 40% receive an Obamo-grant, for nothing.

You have to go back in history and remember the country's mindset c. 1929. Most people would have died before accepting a nickel of their neighbor's money, and only the most crushing needs of the Great Depression caused them to think otherwise. FDR's programs were mostly structured as self-help, or self-insurance, to be compatible with the country's state of mind.

Much of this changed after World War II, and we of course came to accept emergency based welfare as well as food stamps and free lunch programs, all explicitly based at furnishing basic needs.

The Obama plan is different. It says: if you pay no federal income tax, you don't have to be in dire need to receive an Obama-grant. You just have to (i) vote for Obama, to get him in office; (ii) hope your rich neighbor works awfully hard; and (iii) collect check. It's humiliating, actually; I hope many citizens will tear the dreaded things up, and refuse to accept them. But I doubt it.

We're going in the wrong direction, like I said. Away from the kind of country we've long known.

First, I don't want to see any politician's medical records. Maybe a summary indicating a clean bill of health. Definitely not details, and certainly not details of a woman's five pregnancies.

Second, I'm not sure I would trust medical records, anyway. If memory serves, Ted Kennedy concocted a story that his doctors surmised he was suffering from shock after the drowning incident in 1969. If you're powerful enough, you can probably find a doctor to say anything.

Third, Mark Steyn is suffering from a particular problem afflicting conservatives: obsession with the media. Of course the media is left. Of course they love Obama. Of course their treatment of McCain/Palin is biased. So what? I honestly don't care that much about it, except to the extent they influence dopey know-nothings, and cause me to be governed by less than desirable people. And even then, my animus is only partial; in a free country, free people can receive their information from many different sources.

Fourth, Steyn has written some nice things about Palin, as well as some thoughts reflecting his *personal* interest in her, if you catch my meaning. I think it's demeaning. Your humble correspondent Readerreader has written many nice things about Sarah, and complimented her beauty, but always from a respectful distance.

Fifth, as far as the Muslim thing is concerned, it means nothing to me. I have no problem with Muslims. The bigger problem, as I have posted elsewhere, is the anti-Jewish sentiment reflected by Barack's pals in Chicago -- Hymietown Jackson, Jeremiah "AIDS conspiracy" Wright, and Louis "gutter religion" Farrakhan. How can you spend twenty years with these people and then turn around and lead a pro-Israel foreign policy?