Wealth redistribution is one of the core tenets of Socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Expressing a desire to “spread the wealth around,” indicates that Sen. Obama favors the Socialist dogma of income or wealth redistribution. This means he favors social/economic engineering; where those who possess less are afforded more at the demise of those who dedicated themselves to earning more.
Milton Friedman, the American Nobel Laureate economist, famously and successfully argued that this code of belief, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” turns ability into a liability, and need into an asset. It rewards those who simply exist and punishes those that produce, with all due respect to Mr. Obama’s declaration that he doesn’t want to “penalize” that Ohio plumber.
Simply put, it is naïve to believe that giving someone something for nothing – or something simply because he doesn’t have it – instills a desire to strive for attaining anything. In fact, it demonstrates to him that he will be taken care of – by his fellow citizens through taxation and the subsequent redistribution of wealth – even if he contributes nothing to society; especially if he contributes nothing to society.
Additionally, taking something away from someone after they have worked to acquire it – especially when it is given to someone who did nothing to earn it – diminishes the desire to be productive. Eventually you are left with an apathetic populace constantly looking to feed from the public trough; you end up with a situation where government must provide for all because those who earn have ceased to exist. This is the sad, albeit prophetic irony of Ayn Rand’s work Atlas Shrugged.
This end game – socially engineering a society to create dependency under the guise of “giving those ‘without’ a chance at success” – feeds directly into Mr. Obama’s vision of what government should be; the provider. It creates a power-base more potent than any military force the world has ever known. It succeeds by killing the strength of independence and the Right of the individual, and eradicating the American entrepreneurial spirit while placing government at the center of society, as the mother, the father, the provider.
Make no mistake, “my friends,” the ideology of the Progressive-Left is rooted in Socialism and right now their candidate, Barack Obama, is slightly ahead in the polls.
Our nation stands just inside the beginning of a Second Civil War, one taking place on the ideological battlefield. Should we lose this election Progressive-Left Socialists will control the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of our government. Our nation, our Constitution and especially our Capitalist system will be damaged, very possibly beyond repair.
O God, Your plans are firm, faithful and forever. The purposes of Your heart prevail through all the generations. Let Your mighty, perfect will be done in the elections on November 4th. –Psalm 33:11 (But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.)
Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The government is best which governs least,” and that sentiment was thematic in all of his writing about the role of government. So what happened to the Party of Jefferson, the once-great Democratic Party, the champion of limited government?
Jefferson, who authored our Declaration of Independence, led the Anti-Federalist movement against the ratification of the Constitution, because he feared that those elected to lead our nation would forgo their higher calling to “support and defend the Constitution,” and become pawns for special interests, using those constituencies to perpetuate their office and further centralize government power.
Nowhere was he more concerned about this degradation of public integrity than in regard to the judiciary. Jefferson feared it would become the “despotic branch,”, undermining and altering the proposed constitution by judicial diktat rather than its prescribed method.
Jefferson’s opponent, James Madison, arguing for ratification of our Constitution, which he authored, believed that individual and states’ rights would endure: “Ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments… would be signals of general alarm… But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.” (Federalist No. 46)
By 1792, however, Madison himself had joined his fellow Virginian, Jefferson, in opposition to the Federalist Party.
Jefferson’s intellect and his insights into the nature of man were astounding, so much so that 170 years later another famous Democrat, John F. Kennedy, welcomed the 49 Nobel Prize recipients to the White House saying, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge that has ever been gathered together at the White House-with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
Jefferson’s concerns about the degraded integrity of public men have never been clearer than in the current presidential cycle. At no point in history has the differential in “Presidential Character” between the two leading candidates been more clear.
But this election is much more than a referendum on the two candidates, John Sidney McCain and Barack Hussein Obama; it is a referendum on the ability of a majority of Americans voters to discern between one candidate who possesses the presidential character and integrity of a statesman, and one who does not.
In fact, Obama could not even qualify for a basic security clearance if he was applying for a government job because of his close association with unrepentant terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. These “useful idiots,” apologists for socialist political and economic agendas, used their radical celebrity to launch Barack Obama’s political career and are his mentors to this day.
No issue is more pressing in this election cycle than the one that concerned Jefferson most-that of the “Despotic Branch.”
Consider this: Five Supreme Court justices will be over 70 years of age in the first year of the next presidential term. Two of them, the most liberal, will be 76 and 89. The next president will thus determine whether the Supreme Court will abide by leftist ideology, or by their oath to support and defend our Constitution. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of our nation hangs in the balance.
“Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 percent of the American people will get a tax cut. You’d think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than 6-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you’re wondering why Obama didn’t simply announce that under his plan 112 percent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they’d really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 percent it is…[O]ur Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: ‘95.’ It’s the words ‘percent’ immediately following that are wrong: that’s a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut. Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting’s tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: ‘It’s not that I want to punish your success,’ he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. ‘I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.’ In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there’s another typing error: that ‘you’ should read ‘I, Barack.’ ‘You’ will have no say in it.” -Mark Steyn
From: The Desk of J. C. Ryle
A religion without doctrine or dogma is a thing which many are fond of talking of in the present day. It sounds very fine at first. It looks very pretty at a distance. But the moment we sit down to examine and consider it, we shall find it a simple impossibility. We might as well talk of a body without bones and tendons. No man will ever be anything or do anything in religion, unless he believes something. No one ever fights earnestly against the world, the flesh and the devil, unless he has engraved on his heart certain great principles which he believes. (Holiness)