The woman speaking in the 26 second video below, Peggy Joseph, is shockingly honest in her thoughts about what a Barack Obama Presidency means to her. Peggy Joseph is convinced that she will not have to worry anymore about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage because Barack Obama is going to help her. Watch for yourself.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sadly, Peggy Joseph believed Barack Obama’s spread the wealth thinking and now believes, not in earning more money through work, but in government transfer payments from the “rich” to those with less. This Marxist mentality amounts to legalized stealing. Thanks to Barack Obama’s two-years of campaigning and his promise to give tax cuts to 95% of Americans when only about 65% pay any income taxes, millions of Americans now believe they are entitled to a share of other people’s wealth. Sadly, many of those who currently pay no income taxes now expect a socialistic government check to cover their gas and mortgage.

It’s true, Obama is about change. However, it’s not the kind of change most people think they will be getting. Peggy Joseph is in for a surprise when her government check disappears after there are no more rich people to tax into poverty to pay for her gas and mortgage.

Barack Obama already told us his plan for bankrupting coal power plants. Now with his spread the wealth gone wild way of thinking, a more likely scenario, I fear, will be bankrupting the whole nation.

Here’s an insightful political cartoon by Rick McKee that a Ponderstorm reader sent me. It does a great job of putting Barack Obama’s socialistic income redistribution notion into perspective.

As the rich candidate, would Barack Obama want his “spread the wealth around” scheme applied to his campaign contributions? What do you think? Should the government force the successful Barack Obama to share his campaign contributions with John McCain who is behind on fundraising? Wouldn’t that give John McCain a chance at success just like Barack Obama told ‘Joe the Plumber’ he wanted to do for those who earned less? (Click image to enlarge.)

I just read something powerful from a pamphlet by William J. H. Boetcker (1873-1962) and entitled The Ten Cannots. It was originally published in 1916 but I feel its message is very fitting to us today and especially now during the 2008 Presidential election cycle. Here are the “10 cannots”:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
4. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
6. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
7. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
9. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
10. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

I wish all in government and those aspiring to positions in government would take these simple yet powerful concepts to heart. Voters would be wise to do the same.

Please note: The above quote is often wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

The recording below contains a stunning admission by Barack Obama regarding the redistribution of wealth. It seems he is not arguing about whether we should or should not redistribute wealth but how best to do it. The recording is taken from a 2001 interview segment with the Odyssey radio program on WEBZ (91.5 FM) in Chicago. At that time Obama was an Illinois state senator from the 13th district and a senior lecturer in the Law School at the University of Chicago.

Please listen to this 4:17 audio segment and notice how Obama laments that the Warren Court was not that radical and failed to bring about redistributive change. He also said he was “not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.” He does seem to think that it can be done legislatively, though, as an administrative function. Note his lack of opposition to the idea of wealth redistribution by government. Contrary to that, he seems to wholeheartedly support that notion.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Unfortunately the above recording contains just snippets of Obama’s redistribution of wealth statements. Does anybody know where a recording of the rest of the interview can be found?

My thoughts on this: Barack Obama is a radical with Marxist underpinnings. His recent past (as late as this year in some cases) associations with radicals of similar stripes suggests to me that he is very comfortable and sympathetic with these viewpoints. Furthermore, his lack of outrage at being linked to these individuals is telling. If there were truly no association then why does he not take offense that people suggest there is? Most people would be very angry if somebody wrongly connected them to unsavory individuals such as a domestic terrorist (Ayers), a slumlord (Rezko), a racist and anti-American preacher (Wright), and other radicals and radical groups (Pfleger, ACORN, etc.). Obama’s tepid response and measured denials to such linkages suggests he is hiding a real relationship and camaraderie with them.

Updated: And on top of the above noted problems, less than two weeks ago Obama again reiterated his wealth redistribution goals. At that time he told the now famous ‘Joe the Plumber’ he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” There’s no question an Obama Presidency would mean change; however, it would be a very bad kind of change for America.

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words. I think the example on the left does just that regarding the seemingly complex concept of socialism and wealth redistribution. In my opinion, it sums up the functional basics of socialism very well.

Under a socialistic system, government (or the “community,” as socialistic proponents like to say) collects resources through “progressive” taxation. Stated another way, government levies an increasingly higher tax burden on those earning or owning more assets. In reality, though, socialism looks a lot like armed robbery since the threat of collective force is used to confiscate a person’s wealth.

It is also worth noting that, according to Marxist theory, socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Please note: I do not know who produced this graphic and thus cannot provide appropriate credit.

As I noted in my polling post yesterday, we are witnessing an unprecedented amount of pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media. The bias is so widespread that in many circles it has become politically incorrect to even voice support for John McCain. This peculiar political scenario reminds me of the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Danish poet Hans Christian Andersen.

As the story goes, the emperor cares about little more than clothing and always wants to wear the best in the land. One day he is approached by two swindlers who promise him the finest suit from the most beautiful and amazing fabric in the world. This fabric, the emperor is told, is visible to only the wise. In short, anyone who is either stupid or unfit will not be able to see the fabric.

The weak-minded emperor is flattered by the swindlers and, when shown the magical “fabric” does not want to admit he cannot see it. So, to not appear stupid or unfit as emperor, he vainly pretends the fabric is beautiful and authorizes the suit be made at once. Similarly, none of the emperor’s ministers want to appear unfit or stupid so they also pretend to see the fabric and proclaim their admiration.

After much supposed labor, the swindlers tell the emperor that the suit is finished. The emperor, still not admitting he cannot see a stitch of clothing, is “dressed” in the suit. Those around him applaud and gush over the tailors’ workmanship and how good it looks on the emperor. The emperor in his vanity enjoys the attention and proceeds to parade through the capital in a special procession to show off his new “clothes” that only the wise can see. Everyone in the kingdom succumbs to the pressure to not appear stupid. They lavish admiration for the beautiful “clothing” that is fit only for the emperor.

During the parade, however, a small child cries out, “But he has nothing on!” At that moment the crowd no longer withholds their better judgment and admits that the child told the truth — the emperor really is wearing no clothes! The emperor, though, not admitting his foolishness, holds his head high and continues to proceed through the town without clothing.

I feel this nearly 200-year old fairy tale fits our times very well. I offer the following analogy: The emperor is Barack Obama who has been swindled into thinking he is “the change we can believe in” and a few other foolish, empty campaign slogans.

The mainstream news media, much like the emperor’s ministers, don’t want to appear foolish in front of the emperor since he has a rock star-like following among the young and the elite. Instead of researching the fabric (and noting its flaws, including lack of executive experience, radical associations, ACORN fraud, “spread the wealth around” socialism, give 95% a tax cut when only 65% pay any income taxes lie, etc.), the media swoons over the emperor’s fabric and overlooks the obvious. Meanwhile, they busy themselves microscopically researching the fabric worn by John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and others not associated with the emperor.

The American people, not wanting to appear stupid, feel compelled to go along with the adoring ministers (mainstream media) and likewise admire the fabric. In droves they also overlook its obvious flaws and enthusiastically proclaim its greatness. When asked, however, few can explain why they like the fabric. Instead they loudly proclaim that we need the emperor because he talks so well and looks so good to the world. Besides, what he is wearing doesn’t matter.

The rest of this analogy will be written on November 4th. Hopefully a child will step forward and tell the voting crowds that the emperor has no clothes on. When the crowds hear that child will they open their self-imposed blinded eyes and admit that Obama is an empty suit and unfit to serve as President? Only then, when voters realize the emperor is naked, will it be politically correct to oppose Barack Obama.

After watching three debates and many speeches, we all know John McCain is not an eloquent speaker. His mannerisms sometimes appear strained, partly due to torture-related injuries received decades ago as a prisoner of war, and partly because he is not as refined as his opponent. However, in this election we’re choosing a leader, not a celebrity spokesman, and so those cosmetic factors should be of little concern given the grave issues we face as a nation.

With that in mind, there are at least 10 things I’d like to see John McCain address everyday on the campaign stump.  If he will fully embrace and show energy and emotion on these ten populist issues, I feel the election will be his to lose. However, if he won’t actively campaign on them, then he will be defined by his opponent and will miss the chance to paint Barack Obama as the extreme liberal he really is. Apart from a strong stance on these issues, the race will degenerate into a popularity contest for which McCain cannot win.

Here are 10 things I’d like to see McCain embrace in his campaign:

1.  Fighting pork and cutting government spending.

Obama likes to accuse McCain of using a hatchet instead of a scalpel when McCain proposes a broad spending freeze. If I were McCain I’d welcome that accusation and say “Just a hatchet? Give me a chain saw.” The simple truth is you cannot cut much with a scalpel but you can cut vast quantities more with a larger tool. Government has so much pork and excessive spending that we need a chainsaw to cut it all out.

2. Support for the War and the need to kill terrorists.

National security is still the President’s number one task.  McCain should talk daily about his successes in this area and drive home the need for a competent Commander in Chief who supports winning the War and not just withdrawing. The same should be said about Iran and their support of terrorism. Iran must also be stopped in their efforts to enrich uranium and make nuclear weapons. This is a serious international problem that the next President will have to deal with.

3. The Supreme Court.

The next President is likely to appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices as well as scores of federal judges. These are lifetime appointments. McCain says he will nominate strict constructionists. Obama supports those who will legislate from the bench. Need I say more?

4. Abortion and the right to life.

Embracing a culture of life is critical to the survival of our nation. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade is equivalent to exterminating more than the entire population of California. To kill that many Americans today would mean that more than 13 out of every 100 of us would have to die.  Protecting life should be talked about everyday by a candidate who believes a baby’s human rights begin at conception.

5. Support for traditional marriage.

A huge majority of Americans are in favor of protecting marriage as a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Obama wants to redefine and distort the definition of marriage to include same gender arrangements. Americans need to know about this massive difference between the candidates.

6. Obama’s radical friends and associations.

Obama has a history of incredibly poor judgment in the area of his friends and associations. There are so many long-term radical associations in his past that it is hard to believe him when he claims that he is not a radical himself. Americans deserve to know the full story about William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko and ACORN to name just a few examples.

7. Oil and energy.

Drill here, drill now. Build more nuclear power plants. Develop more energy sources. We need to treat our lack of a viable energy policy as a national emergency and work to become energy independent ASAP.

8. Taxes and the economy.

With his “spread the wealth around” Marxist philosophy, Obama must be stopped before he transforms the American tax code into one that resembles a communist system.  Obama’s promise to give 95% of Americans a tax cut when only about 65% pay any income taxes amounts to such a system. Americans must be told the truth until it hits home.

9. Dangers posed by Russia and China.

Russia and China have been flexing their military muscles in more aggressive patterns over the past few years. We need a President who is willing to confront them, stare them down, and put them in their place when they bully other nations.

10. Name names and push a reform agenda now.

John McCain needs to live up to his nickname as The Sheriff and aggressively take on corrupt interests — especially Democrats in Washington — and those who led Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac down the path of corruption. McCain called for reforms of Fannie and Freddie years ago but few know that.  During that time, Obama, on the other hand, was taking huge sums in campaign contributions from these corrupt organizations. McCain needs to name names and push a strong reform agenda now.

I think if McCain aggressively addressed these ten areas he would win a landslide victory. Most voters are looking for a leader who will leave them alone to pursue the American dream, will take on the bad guys, and will protect our national interests and traditional values. John McCain needs to hurry up, step up to the plate and build the case that he is just that leader.

I’m tired of hearing Democrats say we should raise taxes on the rich or the rich should never receive a tax cut. To make matters even more frustrating, they often state this sentiment as if there’s something evil about being rich. Here are three things to consider before embracing the “tax the rich” notion.

1. Only people who earn more money than they need can afford to hire others.

Excessively taxing the rich kills the economy. Have you ever seen somebody barely scraping a living from paycheck to paycheck start a business and hire employees? Can poor people offer health insurance plans and pay benefits? Of course not. They don’t have any extra money to risk or invest. Excessive taxation of the rich takes their investment capital away which harms the economy.

2. The rich enlarge the economy by their consumption.

Let me illustrate this point by an example. Following the 1993 Clinton tax increase a large surcharge on the sale of new luxury yachts was imposed. That luxury tax almost put the the American yacht construction industry out of business. Who builds the yachts? The rich? Of course not. So guess who was laid off when nobody was buying yachts? The lower class yacht construction workers suffered for that tax (and from the government’s point of view it raised almost no revenue because domestic yacht sales dried up).

3. Who decides what qualifies as rich and how much to confiscate?

Taxing the rich is a Marxist income redistribution scheme. It punishes work, risk and capitalism. It deprives poeple of their individual freedoms and personal property rights. In a free society government has no right to decide who needs how much money and what amount they get to keep.

In conclusion, excessive taxation of the rich is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. It’s also like poisoning the village’s only water well just to get even with one person. As in both of these cases, the greed and jealousy inflicted via excessive taxation on a select few ends up hurting everyone.

More than a month ago I asked if Barack Obama’s “Robin Hood” tax plan would redistribute wealth. Based on the fact that only about 65% of Americans pay any income taxes but Obama was promising a “tax cut” to 95% of Americans I knew something was fishy. Because those numbers are mathematically impossible to compute I suspected he was calling an income redistribution scheme a “tax cut.”

My fear that such a scheme could be in the works went from speculation to reality when Obama answered a simple question from a business owner about taxes. We now have proof positive that Obama plans to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Watch Obama in his own words tell that he plans to “spread the wealth around” (about 4:45 into the video):

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can read more about this specific Marxist admission here. I say Marxist because it is just that — income redistribution from those with “wealth” to those who are “poor.”

Karl Marx wrote the following in 1875 in his Critique of the Gotha Program: “In a higher phase of communist society, … – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”  The bourgeois, according to Marx, is the elite with wealth. Their wealth is to be confiscated and redistributed to those without.

Obama won’t tell you this but his economic plan embraces the redistributive economic philosophy of Marxism. On that point alone it is easy for me to see that Obama is dangerous for America. Obama is change we can believe will enslave us. He is only qualified to lead a communist or communist-leaning nation like Russia, China, North Korea or Cuba. Now we know why leaders in those nations like him.

Updated: Apologies to the real Robin Hood who loved freedom and did not share Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth” mentality. Robin Hood fought the corrupt and oppressive ruling class who abused the poor. At that time it was “tax the poor to pay the rich” which is likewise a bad system.