By Carter Clews
First, let’s get one thing straight: government in and of itself has not, cannot, and will not ever create wealth. That’s because government produces no marketable product, and, therefore, has nothing to sell for which it can charge a legitimate price and run up a tab. So, if government decides to “redistribute the wealth,” it first must take it from those who create it. And that’s what makes Barack Obama’s socialist mindset so dangerous to a productive society.
Lest anyone had any remaining doubts about what Mr. Obama really meant when he told the now-famous “Joe the Plumber” that he (Barack Obama) wanted to “share the wealth,” yesterday’s disclosure of the Senator’s 2001 Public Radio interview should close the loop. As he so often does when not befriended by his teleprompter, Mr. Obama let slip with the truth in 2001, just as he did on the rope line with Joe. And it is a truth most hardworking Americans would do well to take with them to the voting booth on November 4. Said Mr. Obama:
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of the wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break us free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution … And the Warren Court interpreted, in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties … I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
For those who may have difficulty deciphering Mr. Obama’s unscripted bloviations, it’s all very simple (despite his campaign’s frenzied denials): Barack Obama is a socialist who believes in taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. Lest anyone take umbrage at such a characterization, let’s get one other thing straight (in addition to the fact that government has not and cannot create wealth): There is absolutely nothing wrong with a socialist running for President of the United States. But, there is something dreadfully wrong with that socialist denying his own ideology — even when his own words betray his denials.
If the majority of the voters in this country decide they want to elect a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth, that is their business, and their right. But for Mr. Obama to continue to dissimulate about his own intentions undermines the very foundation of free and fair elections. And that is wrong.
The above portion of Mr. Obama’s 2001 admission has been the most frequently repeated over the past 24 hours. But, it was actually a separate passage that most starkly betrayed his true socialistic proclivities. Explaining the real import of “economic justice,” as he likes to term it, he let slip: “I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth …”
That, in sum, is what Barack Obama and his socialist comrades really mean by “redistributing the wealth.” It’s not just providing equal opportunity for everyone to be able to sit at the counter and order what they will – it is making sure that when the check comes, it can be handed to someone else to pay.
And now, it’s up to hardworking Americans nationwide to decide for themselves on November 4 if they really want to pick up that tab.
Carter Clews is the Executive Editor of ALG News Bureau.
