Todd Beamon reports at Newsmax:

Radio show host Rush Limbaugh said on Tuesday that left-wing media outlets are pushing for President Barack Obama to postpone next week’s election because of Hurricane Sandy -- something he says Obama has no authority to do.

“The president has no power whatsoever to do this,” Limbaugh said on his radio program. “The president cannot do it. The fact that so many people want the president to is alarming, because it indicates how many people would be comfortabe with that kind of autocratic, totalitarian power.”

Limbaugh cited articles published on such websites as Politico, Slate, and The Atlantic -- as well as questions posed by reporters on Tuesday to White House spokesman Jay Carney as indications that left-wing organizations are pushing for a delayed Election Day.

But note: "In light of this historic storm, and potential unrest, should Obama temporarily suspend the elections to ensure that all [is] in order & the crisis averted?" I asked on Facebook on Monday. If one understands the secular liberal worldview, you can often predict what its true believers and fellow travelers will think and do.

One friend responded, "I do not believe he has a Constitutional power to do so . . . . of course that has never stopped him before."

To which I suggested the following leftist Obamaesque line of argument:

In order to protect the Constitution, which I took an oath to protect and uphold (and nobody takes that oath more seriously than I do) elections have to be suspended until they can be fairly and equitably conducted, at the earliest possible time after the Sandy crisis has been dealt with. In fact, an independent Blue Ribbon Elections commission has found . . .

"When the founders wrote the Constitution, they had no idea that a storm of this magnitude would impact upon the East coast this close to national elections," I later continued.

"[Surely,] it is in the spirit in which they wrote to allow for fairness and equality, lest voters [devastated] by this 'act of God' are unfairly discriminated against, just because they employed common sense, played by the rules, and tried to avoid the hurricane. It would only be a temporary suspension of elections."

The record indicates that Obama and the Democrats and the formerly mainstream media have little use for the rules of freedom as expressed in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution.

Thus they ably represent a history of this world that is replete with examples of opportunists ready to use crises, manufactured or otherwise, to eclipse freedom and impose authoritarian control.

Mind you, if I had concluded that the rules of freedom needed to be replaced by the rules for radicals (based on a merely naturalistic concept of equality, gender, race, class warfare, and so on -- anything but a real Creator who is the origin of unalienable rights), I would be moving in a direction similar to Obama and his media bodyguards.

But their philosophy is unsound intellectually and lacks the needed resources to sustain human freedom, human dignity, and a humane, civil society.

Does any of the above mean elections will be suspended tomorrow or in the near future? Not necessarily. But it does mean that the suspension of elections is thinkable and on the table.

It also means that the mobilization of radical presuppositions requires the demobilization of freedom -- a suspension of freedom that is already underway in a land of czars, industry takeovers, the rejection of unalienable rights, and so on.

The radical understands that the appearance of constitutionality must be maintained as long as is possible, lest the masses awaken and resist enslavement. The grooming process can be a decades-long affair.

The more obvious suspensions of freedoms (to vote, to speak, to assemble, to live, etc.) will always be for the common good ("fairness," "equality," autobahns). And temporary.

Or as Mr. Obama has said: "No sudden moves."