TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

A Demented Idea

Charles Colson

The Brits may be losing their marbles. The distinguished Baroness Warnock, labeled by the Daily Telegraph as Britain’s leading moral philosopher, ought to be ashamed of herself.

You see, Lady Warnock once chaired a government committee that helped legalize embryonic research. She’s known for supporting assisted suicide for people don’t want to burden their caregivers.

But now Lady Warnock has gone a step further. She says elderly people who suffer from dementia are “wasting people’s lives” – that is, the lives of those who care for them – and ought to choose to die even if they’re not suffering.

And even if they aren’t a burden on their families, they ought to “off” themselves anyway, as she puts it, because they’re a burden on the public, which, under British national health care, pays for their treatment. According to the Daily Telegraph, Warnock hopes people will soon be “licensed to put others down.”

Putting others down? That’s the kind of euphemism we use when talking about injured horses or sick dogs. It’s not how we talk about human beings – or at least, it’s not how we used to talk about them.

At age 84, Lady Warnock is old enough to remember Hitler’s Final Solution – and the thinking that drove the slaughter, not only of the Jews, but also of the handicapped, gypsies, and others the Nazis considered “defective” or “useless.”

But even though Lady Warnock should remember World War II, she evidently has forgotten its terrible lessons. Given her despicable recommendation for the elderly, she ought to hope that her memory issues aren’t related to dementia.

Thankfully, at least a few Brits are outraged by Warnock’s comments, calling them – in typical British understatement – both callous and deeply ignorant. Neil Hunt, a spokesman for the British Alzheimer’s Society, says to suggest that people with dementia “have some sort of duty to kill themselves is nothing short of barbaric.”

More ominously, a spokesman for a British right to life group said Warnock’s views “are an illustration that while euthanasia is promoted as a right to choose, it pretty rapidly becomes” an obligation to die.

This tale out of England is also a dire warning about what happens when countries nationalize health care. There’s never enough money to go around – and some bureaucrat at the top is always going to start making choices about who gets to live and who’s going to die. If those targeted for death don’t go willingly, well, they will need to be encouraged to die – or they might get a visit from someone “licensed to put others down.”

Has the Western world truly sunk this low? Do we ever need a more vivid reminder of the tremendous importance of worldview?

Either all human life – from unborn children to demented mothers and fathers – is created in the image of God and therefore infinitely precious, or humans are nothing but the result of mere chance, indistinguishable morally from a sand flea. The choice society makes will determine whether the most vulnerable among us will be respected and protected . . . or whether we will “put them down” when they become a burden.

We Christians must speak out as others – especially those in authority – move us closer and closer to compulsory killing.

If we do nothing, its evidence that perhaps we’ve all lost our marbles.

As opposed to the 2004 election process, the 2008 political campaign does not seem to be as concerned about where the candidates are spiritually, or even morally, even though some aspect of that has been made known.

The concern is more personal … actually more selfish, especially with Christians.

The Christian community, or has that become an oxymoron?, have become more concerned about what they can get from the government programs and promises as opposed to the higher calling to “in-context” biblical values.

It has become about “free” healthcare, affirmative action, my this, my that … and yes, my taxes and social security. These have become an overriding focus over God’s values … life, righteousness, justice. Abortion, same-sex marriage, family values, and other moral issues need to be enforced by the Christian vote. To vote against these issues by voting for the “what’s in it for me” would actually be a sin.

Without biblical values none of the other things are going to improve anyway … they will just continue to get worse!

So, how would Jesus process His vote?

First, Jesus would warn against “. . . people [who] honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Matthew 15:7-9) Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually living out Jesus’ teachings. If you are not living out His teachings you are sinning.

Second, Jesus would warn against those who parade their faith for personal – and political – gain. “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before others, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

Third, Jesus would ask, what’s your record on compassion issues that are important to Him? “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink? I was a stranger and you invited me ink, I needed clothing and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. … I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sister of mine, you did it for me.” (Matthew 25:35-40) Did you take care of people?

Forth, Jesus would probe, have you been faithful valuing life? The unborn, the infirmed, the elderly? “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) God knows us from conception to death. (Psalm 139:13)

Fifth, Jesus would investigate, what are you teaching the children? “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

When we vote and evade the teachings of God’s Word … we sin. The consequences will then be invoked on both us and others.

Don’t support someone simply because he or she mouths the right spiritual sound bytes. Rather, follow Christ’s warning as you evaluate the candidates: “Be as shrewd as snakes.”

Barack Obama asserted during the last presidential debate that someone shouted “kill him” when the Democrat’s name was mentioned at a Sarah Palin rally.

The head Secret Service agent at Tuesday’s Palin rally in Scranton, PA., said: Never happened.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on Tuesday in a story written by reporter David Singleton, saying that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name, a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

Other media outlets picked up the story, including ABC News, MSNBC, and The Associated Press trying to get some mileage out of it for Obama, since they are in his pocket.

During the debate Obama mentioned to John McCain “some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like ‘terrorist’ and ‘kill him,’ and that your running mate didn’t mention, didn’t stop, didn’t say, ‘Hold on a second, that’s kind of out of line.'”

But Bill Slavoski, the agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton, was in the audience at the rally, along with an undisclosed number of other agents, and he said not one of them heard a comment like that.

“I was baffled,” he told the Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader after reading the Times-Tribune report. He said the Secret Service conducted an investigation and could not find a single person to corroborate Singleton’s allegation. “We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.”

Slavoski insisted that Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell “kill him.”

Just another Democrat fabricating a situation to gain attention.

Of course the Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman said on Wednesday: “We stand by the story.” Sure, stand by something you didn’t hear personally … that’s accurate journalism!?

If you believe the media, Joe is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type – he is a true threat to the “Anointed One” – Barack Obama – and his chances of becoming president of the United States. “Joe the plumber” has a secret plan to destroy Barack Obama.

This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it’s true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.

Why? Because he’s an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.

Joe realized that Barack Obama, if elected, plans to punish him with brutal taxes.

Just by coincidence – and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence – Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood. When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question – something the press has not done during the past two years – the Anointed One wilted.

How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money? The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business! As Obama put it, shouldn’t Joe want to help him “spread the wealth around?” so those who didn’t work hard could be supplemented by those who did.

With that one remark, Obama’s disguise as a moderate liberal crumbled … the socialist mentoring was out!

Here are just three of Obama’s biggest lies:

Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.

There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone. Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as “rich.”

Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe’s rich too. Under Obama, he won’t be able to hire new employees and grow his business. Joe’s not alone. Obama says he’ll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you’ll pay 7% on it!

Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut to the middle class.

Baloney! Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That’s an automatic 5% (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers. Then make middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15% to almost 30%.

Next he wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy. Isn’t that going to be nice to have more taxes on you heating, electrical, and vehicle energies.

Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared. So much for the idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future. If you save for them he will tax you again on your savings.

Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America more secure.

Another outright lie that I cannot believe Americans could be gullible enough to believe.

In an age when crazies like Iran’s Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to “destroy” the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan. “I will cut investments in missile defense systems,” Obama said.

He has promised to cut “tens of billions” of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more “secure.” Obama plans to disarm us! In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House? We can’t.

Tell The Truth About Obama

Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs. He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.

He is so radical he even backs driver’s licenses for illegal aliens – even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States. Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan. But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver’s licenses as a state senator in Illinois.

He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children – children actually born alive! He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns. The NRA has made this very plain. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”

Expose The Truth About Obama

We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is. Even though most of the mainstream media except FOX will not inquire into Obama’s past or provide the information that America needs to be informed in their voting, there are many places on the interest to gain that information.

Once you get that information … TELL EVERYBODY ABOUT IT!

With the election days away, one thing has become clear: Barack Obama real colors go beyond  the most liberal presidential candidate in recent memory to a socialist who lacks a moral compass.  That’s what happens when you are mentored by socialists, Marxists, communists, and racists.

How else does one explain his sitting in the pews of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church as Wright spews forth hateful fabrications about America, whites, and Israel? How else explains his being “friendly” with admitted domestic terrorist William Ayers, who told the New York Times he does not rule out engaging in bombings again?

In a chilling video on YouTube, Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weather Underground which Ayers helped found, says the organization planned to take over the U.S. government and give parts of the country to Russia, Cuba, North Vietnam, and China. The plans included “re-educating” Americans as Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries.

In the video, Grathwohl says he asked 25 leaders of the Weather Underground who were discussing the plans, “Well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t re-educate, that are die-hard capitalists?” The reply, says Grathwohl, was that they would “have to be eliminated.” When he pursued the question further, they estimated that “they’d have to eliminate 25 million people in these re-education centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill 25 million people.”

As repugnant as Obama’s relationship with Ayers is, the fact that for two decades Obama attended a church where paranoid hatred of America was preached on a regular basis is more telling. The senator counted as his minister, friend, and advisor a man who says that America created the AIDS virus to kill blacks, puts blacks in prison rather than killing them off, and deserved to be attacked on 9/11 because of its racism.

Obama said he would not have belonged to the church if he had regularly heard Wright’s hate-filled statements … yet he did. Because he knew Wright, Obama disinvited Wright from giving an invocation on his presidency announcement, because his sermons can get “kind of rough.” Why did Obama not resign from the church then?

Last December, Wright gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. Why did Obama not resign then?

The truth is that Obama joined the church and adopted Wright as his friend and mentor because he feels an affinity for Wright’s radical views. Why else would he expose his kids to Wright’s “God d— America” tirades? Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America, highlights the fact that she has the same blame-America-first mentality Wright promotes.

As with his minister, Obama repudiated Ayers only when press disclosures became too embarrassing.

As Max Noel, a former FBI agent who worked the Weather Underground case stated, “They [the Weather Underground] were a violent, violent, anti-government, domestic terrorist organization. Obama has not only associated with those people, he continued associating with racist people like his minister Jeremiah Wright over a period of 20 years. I don’t think that’s by happenstance. It’s just amazing to me. The American people are being led by the nose by people who say this isn’t important.”

In fact, Oliver “Buck” Revell, a former associate deputy director of the FBI who at one time oversaw the applicant and hiring process at the bureau, said the FBI would not hire an individual like Obama because of this background. “One of the principal purposes of the background investigation is to determine who an applicant associated with and the degree of association with any questionable associates,” Revell says. “Obama would certainly not have been hired on my watch.”

The Obama campaign has refused to say when Obama became aware of Ayers’ terrorist background. When Obama began going to Columbia University in 1981, both Ayers and his future wife Bernardine Dohrn, an FBI most wanted fugitive, were frequently in the news. Ayers’ violent past was well known in Chicago, where he was quoted regularly and described as a former radical and former fugitive. Then Ayers orchestrated an event at his home that launched Obama’s political career. Obama continued to serve on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago with Ayers for more than a year after Ayers expressed regret in the New York Times for not bombing more people.

Last April, Obama defended his relationship with Ayers. Obama said in a Democratic debate that he is also friendly with Rep. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), whom he described as favoring the death penalty for those who carry out abortions – two totally different situations. Radical as Coburn’s position may be, he was proposing legislation to be passed by Congress. That is quite different from Ayers’s admission that he bombed innocent people in violation of criminal law and that he wished he had set off more bombs.

Instead of finding ways to excuse them, Obama should have been denouncing both Wright and Ayers. Instead of voting “present” 130 times in the Illinois Senate, he should have been doing his job and taking a stand instead of seeing doing everything he could to keep his “options open!”

The founder of a group that’s been accused of promoting teen-adult homosexual relationships is the Obama campaign’s fundraising co-chair for the “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender” (LGBT) community.

Kevin Jennings is the outgoing head of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group known for its efforts to establish so-called “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs in public schools across the country. The longtime homosexual activist is also playing a prominent role in Barack Obama’s White House bid.

Linda Harvey, president of Mission America, says many parents would be frightened to know that one of Senator Obama’s top homosexual fundraisers founded a group, namely GLSEN, which has recommended books that condone sex between men and teenage boys.

“GLSEN believes that there should be homosexual clubs in K-12 schools, that children can self-determine their own sexuality at the grade-school level, that evidently it’s fine for children to read and be exposed to many, many child corruption elements of sexuality, including the possibility of having sex with an adult,” Harvey explains.

Jennings’ position in the Obama campaign shows the senator supports teaching kids “the tactics of revolution.”

Obama’s public statements also show his support beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Time is running short to avert a major disaster for our country. That disaster’s name is President Barack Obama. But this disaster can be averted – even though the slanted media are overstating Obama’s inevitability.

The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country. We will either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace – or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.

Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president – he is a dangerous one.

The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states. Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put a socialist in the White House.

In the closing weeks of this election, Obama is trying to remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters. He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party. Remember his 100% liberal rating in Congress, his support for the total gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.

He also supports giving illegal aliens driver’s licenses and almost all Americans agree that Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.

Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license? Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote – and they were illegal. What about the 20 million illegal aliens in America right now? How many of them will vote anyway?

Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses. Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan. Obama’s position is not a new one. Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator. There is no doubt that Obama will also champion this radical plan.

With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities – biological, chemical, and nuclear – can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?

Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered. Or, does he just not care?

You can prevent that from happening just by the way you vote.

Last Wednesday night’s debate introduced America to “Joe the Plumber.” While Joe is an actual person who is working hard to make ends meet, he represents more than just being a plumber. “Joe” represents a fundamental difference between what we believe conservatives and socialists want for our country.

When Joe asked Barack Obama about how he was going to have his taxes raised under Obama’s Tax Plan, Senator Obama responded: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Do you see Obama spreading his wealth around?

After asking this simple question that challenged Obama suddenly everything about him was being checked out by behind the scenes “officials” and of course the Obama Media Team, most of the public media that are in Obama’s pocket.

I think Joe responded for all of us when he said: “It’s not right for someone to decide you made too much – that you’ve done too good and now we’re going to take some of it back.” This is your punishment for working harder than someone else … take your money and give it to those who don’t work or don’t work as hard as you.

Simply put, Barack Obama believes Americans should pay more taxes to pay for more liberal programs – which are for the most part socialism. Obama believes we should take more money from hard working Americans to pay for programs supported by the socialist left wing of his party.

It’s outrageous, and no wonder Joe said that Obama’s Tax Plan “infuriates me.” We should all be infuriated!

If Democrats win this election socialist will have control of the White House, the Senate and the House. You see Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and most other Democrats are not just liberals they have moved to the far left into socialists.

Be assured that if this happens, they will take more of our hard earned money and “spread the wealth around” as Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber. Remember their mindset is redistribute the wealth … let big brother spend your hard earned money, trust them to do that better than you can.

Election Day is fast approaching – don’t let this happen. Voting Republican is not perfect but it is a whole lot safer than voting Socialist.

Democrats assume Republicans are raising Obama’s many questionable relationships in a desperation effort to salvage the election. You might think this is splitting hairs, but I believe the reason is that these relationships scare the daylights out of us.

Conservatives were very much opposed to Bill Clinton for myriad reasons, but with decades in elective office in Arkansas, at least he wasn’t a stealth candidate. Though rumors and mysteries abounded, Clinton was hardly a blank slate who emerged out of nowhere.

Obama is different. He burst onto the political scene and has risen with such alacrity that even many of his supporters don’t have a clue what he’s about or where he would take America.

It’s no wonder the conspiracy types are whispering that he’s the Manchurian candidate. It’s not as if he’s embracing his past; he’s concealing it, and for good reason. People have a right to know just how radical this man is because America’s destiny is in the balance.

In the past I have been confident that no matter which party is in power, it can only do so much damage in four years because of the ingenious safeguards our Constitution contains to preserve the essential structure of government that maximizes individual liberty. But I admit I’m more concerned today.

We need to remember that the Constitution is only as reliable as the moral fiber of the people from which it derives its power and their commitment to good (and limited) government. That’s why John Adams famously said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.“

I’m not just worried that Obama will appoint leftist activist judges who will continue to rewrite the Constitution. It’s that he wants to socialize health care, initiate a massive transfer of wealth via the Global Poverty Act and would intervene in foreign conflicts solely for humanitarian reasons when our national interests are not at stake. He obviously regards the tax code as a license to punish wealth and equalize incomes in the name of “fairness” rather than a means to raise revenue for essential government services.

Then there’s the pervasive climate of financial fear today and the potential usurpation of power by the next president. We’ve seen oil prices rise to panic levels. But oil concerns have been dwarfed by the global financial crisis, which has led Congress to delegate nearly carte blanche authority to the executive branch to navigate through it. The character and ideology of the person who occupies the Oval Office have never been more important.

As if all this weren’t enough to culminate in a perfect storm for the next president to transform our system fundamentally, there’s also an alarming atmosphere among many Obama supporters. They follow him in a cult-like trance, having no clue what he stands for or what policies and changes he will implement once in office.

Disturbingly, Obama’s candidacy is inspiring certain youths to perform paramilitary drills in his honor, public officials to threaten criminal prosecution of those who criticize him, and attorneys purporting to be working for his campaign systematically to intimidate local election officials. With this mentality, is there any doubt the Obamaites would try to shut down conservative talk radio with the “Fairness Doctrine”?

Then there’s the corrupt ACORN (under investigation in at least 10 states for possible voter fraud), which is terrorizing the electoral process with such a widespread assault that it truly threatens the integrity of this election. Where does Obama fit into all of this? Was he a key lawyer for ACORN, as alleged? What about his alliances with anti-American leftist radicals?

I disagree with those who have said the most important issue concerning the Obama-Ayers connection is Obama’s “judgment.” The crucial question is whether Obama is of like mind with such radicals. He has spent much time with a number of radicals.

National Review Online’s Andy McCarthy reports that when Ayers “was given the opportunity of a lifetime, a $150 million fund to be doled out as seed money for the kind of programs he thought would advance the cause, the guy brought in to run it was Barack Obama – with whom he worked closely on ‘change’ in the schools for five years.”

And how about Obama’s membership in the New Party, a radical leftist organization established in 1992 to push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left, as reported by the American Thinker? Is it not imperative we learn the extent of this relationship and why Obama is trying to cover it up?

Does anyone doubt that if any Republican presidential candidate had a small fraction of the questionable alliances Obama has, he already would have been hounded into withdrawing from the race? Why are so many afraid of this man? Why does he hide his activities and affiliations during his collegiate years?

Someone used similar political tactics in 1933 against the Jews in Germany to establish his dictatorship. Too many questions about Obama’s background remain to be answered and the American people, should they vote him into office, will lose liberties, ideals and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

This election is about placing the most qualified person in the Presidency; without transparency and willful disclosure, how can we trust Obama to make decisions for us and our country?

“Spread the wealth around.” – Obama to Joe the Plumber

In certain unscripted moments, Barack Obama has given us a glimpse of his socialist slant, but I wonder what percentage would vote for him if they truly understood the extent of his radicalism.

Yet the financial crisis has created a climate of fear and uncertainty and unleashed an unprecedented tolerance for large-scale government intervention, which is playing perfectly into Obama’s hands. People are blaming this largely Democratic-spawned mess on Republicans because Bush is still president. They only see the figurehead of a president to hang the blame on as opposed to a Democrat controlled Congress and Senate that are highly responsible for this situation.

Maybe I’m being too much of an alarmist, but I’m worried for the first time in my life that the election of a presidential candidate could lead to a fundamental change in our system of government. Just listen to the comments of post-debate focus group members expressing a knowing willingness to accept Obama’s socialism, such is their angst at the subprime mortgage mess.

Already some 38% of Americans do not pay income taxes, and Barack Obama wants to increase that percentage dramatically. How ironic that he and other Democrats pretend to be targeting their message to “working-class” people when many of the constituents voting for them aren’t working. How the upper-middle class and wealthy are demonized as not earning an honest living.

Do you suppose it has registered with Obama voters that Obama is deliberately turning the American dream on its head? Could it be any clearer that his message to the middle class is: Don’t aspire to achievement, success and wealth because a) it is immoral to have more than others, b) the government will take your wealth away from you and give it to others, and c) why bother to bust your rear end to make more when you can vote yourselves money from the public trough?

Obama let slip his socialist mind to Joe the plumber when he denied he wanted to punish wealth and insisted he just wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Joe was justifiably repulsed by Obama’s cavalier attitude toward the American dream.

Democratic commentator Bob Beckel was dismissive of the significance of Obama’s outright nod to socialism, saying we’ve had a progressive tax system since the income tax was initiated. But what Beckel did not explain is that at least in those days, the stated purpose of the income tax system was to fund government services, not to redistribute wealth.

It’s one thing to say that higher income earners should pay a higher percentage for government services. But Obama makes no pretense of stopping there. He told Joe that he wants to use the tax code to confiscate money from higher income earners and give it to others. But he hasn’t been so open about that in the presentation of his fraudulent tax plan.

When Obama says he will cut income taxes for 95% of Americans, he is dissembling. If 38% are already not paying, his tax credits to them amount to transfer payments from higher income earners, which are actually spending increases, not tax cuts, as The Wall Street Journal editors have noted.

Socialists and liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can’t change it. Human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working middle class, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we’re talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.

How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work. Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the truism that people produce less when they aren’t allowed to keep as much of what they produce. When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the GDP pie.

We know from the writings of William Bradford that the Pilgrims learned this lesson the hard way when they tried a communal system of sharing, thinking it “would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Instead, “This community … was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” Men refused to “work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense; … this was thought injustice.”

Socialism and communism have failed everywhere they have been tried in the world, yet die-hard socialists, such as Barak Obama and William Ayers, still insist on cramming them down our throats in the name of “fairness.”

Unreconstructed radicals always say that true socialism hasn’t been given a real chance. Well, if Obama is elected, look out, we will get that chance. Remember, if Obama wins he has total control of America with all those socialist and pork barrel bills stacked up and waiting for him from the Democrat controlled Congress and Senate!

The wolf will be in the henhouse!