This Christmas, let's remember who we are

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

"Tis the season to be jolly."

But this year it's going to be a challenge for many Americans. A Washington Post survey this week reported two thirds saying they were being impacted by the current recession. In another poll, 57 percent said they'd be cutting back on their Christmas spending.

Nothing unsettles the human heart and mind more than the unknown. I think our general discomfort is compounded by a feeling of not knowing exactly what is causing this economic tsunami and how and when we'll recover.

Maybe as we consider all this, and particularly at a time of the year when we think about the blessings we do have to count, we might ponder what produced all the prosperity we have to begin with. What's behind this great economic miracle -- the greatest of all time -- the United States of America?

If we listen to the news and our politicians, you would conclude it's all kind of a big machine. Like with a stalled car, they're all under the hood trying to figure out what went wrong. A busted hose? Distributor? Spark plugs? What needs to get fixed or installed to get the thing running again?

Or, alternatively, you'd think that we're like a bunch of white laboratory mice running around in a cage. The policy makers stand over us in white coats trying to figure out, "Well, do we need to give them a food pellet or an electric shock to get them to do what we want?"

Are we so lost today that we have forgotten that our great miracle has been produced by free people living in a free country?

Yet, now we hear from politicians that the problem is we're too free. We need more government, more regulations, more bureaucrats planning our lives and telling us what to do. Who is asking, given what made us great to begin with, if the problem is not exactly the opposite?

Consider that on the other side of the world the Chinese are now celebrating the 30th anniversary of the economic reforms that introduced private ownership and free markets into their communist country. Sure, China is still run by their communist party. But 30 years ago one hundred percent of their companies were government run. Today half have been privatized.

China has been growing at double-digit rates since they opened the door to economic freedom. Income per person is ten times higher today than thirty years ago. And 250 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty.

Now I read that another miracle is occurring in China alongside of the new prosperity which freedom has enabled.

The Economist magazine recently reported about what it called "China's fastest growing non-governmental organization." Christianity.

According to the report, there may be now 130 million Chinese Christians - some 10 percent of the population. It's estimated that maybe one percent of the Chinese population was Christian when communist China was founded in 1949.

It's particularly compelling to consider that this explosive growth of Chinese Christianity is occurring in a country that is still officially atheist and where the government remains hostile and opposed to religion. And that, according to this estimate, the number of Chinese Christians is now almost double the number of Chinese members of the Communist Party.

So why, when the Chinese are discovering both freedom and faith, is America abandoning both?

Why do we now think we need to turn to commissars in Washington to plan our economy and our lives to save our country? Is this really where we should be turning to be saved?

Let's remember, particularly now, that freedom is what made America great and that for that freedom, in the words of our first president George Washington, "religion and morality are indispensable."

This Christmas, let's remember who we really are and that the formula for American success is freedom, faith, family, and friends. Merry Christmas to all.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Rick Warren: Christian Liberalism is 'Marxism in Christian Clothing'

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter
Tue, Dec. 16 2008 03:35 PM EST

Best-selling author, social activist and megachurch pastor Rick Warren described the social gospel supported by many of the mainline churches as “Marxism in Christian clothing.”

“[W]e don’t need to care about redemption, the cross, repentance. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society and if we make those social structures better the world will become a better place,” explained Warren as he described the beliefs behind those who support the "social gospel," in his interview with Beliefnet.com, which was posted Monday.

“Really in many ways it was just Marxism in Christian clothing,” he criticized. “[I]t was in vogue at that time that if we redeem society then man will automatically get better. It didn’t deal with the heart.”

Warren, recognized as one of the most socially active Christians in the world, did not hold back his criticism of those who call themselves Christians but seek to make the world a better place by focusing on the body – issues of poverty, disease, social justice and racial justice – and not the soul.

But he also disagreed with their counterpart – Christians who disregard the body altogether while caring only for the soul and personal morality.

“Who’s right? Well in my opinion they’re both right,” Warren concluded. “Part of my desire as a leader is to bring these two wings back together. I think we need them both.

“I think it’s very clear that Jesus cared about both the body and the soul. He cared about both personal and social issues and I think they’re both important but there’s been this split.”

Historically, evangelicals were leaders when it came to changing society, Warren pointed out. Evangelicals were at the forefront of the abolition of slavery, with pastors leading that movement. It was also evangelicals who were on the frontlines of calling for the right of women to vote and protesting child labor laws.

“That’s my whole job is I’ve gotta reawaken what I call the 19th Century evangelicalism,” Warren said, noting that Protestantism split in the 20th Century with mainline Protestants on the side of the social gospel and evangelicals and fundamentalists who emphasized morality and salvation.

The evangelical pastor noted that the mainline groups have “died,” pointing out that mainline denominations have been in decline for 40 years while charismatic and evangelicals have continued growing.

“There are more Muslims in America than there are Episcopalians,” Warren highlighted. “There’s less than 2 million of them (Episcopalians).”

In addition to the social gospel, Warren's interview with Beliefnet also covered negative views of Christianity, human problems and God’s plan, gay marriage and divorce, and the Bush administration’s policy on torture.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Lack of Gratitude for Forced-Charity

There was an interesting letter on the Letters to the Editor page of the Rapid City Journal today.

It regards the proper use of taxpayer-funded charity, and it contains enlightening information about one of the many reasons why government-mandated, taxpayer-funded charity is inadvisable (if you're discerning enough to catch it).

Food stamp usage recipients’ business, not everyone elses

Monday, Dec. 1, in regards to the Two Cents section, somebody wrote in regarding the food stamp program. The last part state “…however we also need to put more control on the food stamp program, I don’t think the program was set up to buy candy, soda and similar products.

I’ve read similar letters and if I can be honest, they make me very angry.

I’m a disabled old lady that is raising my grandchildren. I love them very much and when they cry and beg for a candy bar or a can of pop every now and then I’m going to let them have it. They deserve a treat just like any other child. Most of these mothers you are griping about are treating their children. Of course, we have to sacrifice something, but that’s out business, not yours.

Don’t you have enough to do than to be picking on poor people?

You sound too much like Marie Antoinette who allegedly said, “Let them eat cake.” Well we are trying to do just that. If you’d leave us alone.

Stick your big nose into something that really needs sniffing.

IRENE CLIFFORD
Rapid City

I have just one question for Ms. Clifford with regard to whose business it is if food stamp money is being spent wastefully.

Who's paying the bill: her or the taxpayers?

Rome is Burning – And We’re Having a National Fiddling Convention

BY PAUL E. SCATES

While politicians of both parties are fiddling away, mostly in squabbles about who has the most power, the issues that affect the daily lives of all Americans are being ignored. And if politicians aren’t yammering on endlessly about them, then to the distinguished members of the Fourth Estate don’t recognize those issues as newsworthy.

In my life I’ve heard people ask about how the ordinary German people could have simply stood by quietly while Hitler ascended to power, how the Russians allowed the Bolsheviks to seize control of the government, or how the Jews in Europe meekly acquiesced to the horrors of the Nazi-imposed holocaust, et al. In fifty years or so, people will be asking the same question about the demise of the United States as a world power, or even as a nation. So we need not ask ‘Why?’ or ‘How?’ others succumbed to their fates so meekly; all we have to do is examine what’s happening today in our own nation.

For example, how about our dependency on foreign oil? Oh, sure, the gasoline prices are down right now, so that issue is no longer important, even though we were paying over $4 a gallon just weeks ago. Even though OPEC has and plans to again cut production to bolster oil prices. The Iraqi oil minister just proclaimed that $80 a barrel (which equates to around $3 a gallon for gasoline) is a “reasonable” price. (No good deed goes unpunished.)

Our own politicians – you know, those who so unctuously pledge to “serve” their constituents’ interests – have steadfastly refused to harvest the oil we have in our own country in order to give us time to develop practical and affordable alternatives to the oil that gives our enemies such power over us. No, it’s not a long-term solution, but neither is paying over $700 billion a year to those who hate us, while leaving our own oil – estimated to be several times more than Saudi reserves – untouched. If you think oil-per-barrel prices won’t again skyrocket, sending gasoline to $4 or $5 dollars a gallon (or more), you’re hopelessly ignorant of world politics. Our politicians are not supposed to be that ignorant, yet they insist on maintaining our status as helpless prey to socialist wackos (Chavez in Venezuela) and filthy rich oil sheiks who support Islamic terrorists with the money we pay them.

How about debt? If any one of us owed money in the proportion that our nation owes, we would have long-since been bankrupt, penniless and homeless. The second-most powerful nation in history (the USSR) no longer exists, yet it wasn’t defeated militarily. It collapsed economically (in no small part due to the arms race with the U.S.). We owe more money to China that any of us could calculate, and more to Saudi Arabia and the other oil-producing nations, yet our politicians tell us that the “crisis” of the financial industry (and the auto industry, and whoever else decides they ‘need’ a bailout) requires us to allocate them money that we have to borrow! Try that in your own finances and see how long you keep the wolves from the door…yet our nation can do it indefinitely?

Now we have a president who is much a socialist as Hugo Chavez, who apparently hates this country that provided him such amazing opportunities, and who will oversee a Democrat-controlled administration for at least four years. Do you think we’ll begin drilling our own oil (which, by the way, would provide a huge economic benefit in equipment sales, thousands of jobs, etc.)? When the supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans increased our debt, do you think Obama and the Democrats, who are known for tax-and-spend and never met a government program that costs billions they didn’t like, will reduce it? No, even though we’re at a critical point in our history, facing the real threat of economic collapse and dependence on nations that hate us, it won’t happen. Why?

Because you and I allow our politicians to so cavalierly ignore these and other critical issues, while they busy themselves with who gets what party post, or who gets the most pork for their district.

I feel like I’m watching one of those nature shows on Discovery channel, where the slowest wildebeast in the herd is systematically cut off and surrounded by lions, then brought down and eaten, even while it’s still alive and aware of what’s happening. Our politicians are the cameramen; they see what’s happening, but they have other priorities, so the animal is savagely killed and eaten. Do you honestly think that the Saudis and other Middle Eastern nations care about what fate befalls us? Or China? Come to think of it, do you think any of our politicians, of either party, honestly care? Their arrogance and persistent non-action prove otherwise.

But then…so does our own unwillingness to demand that our representatives support our Constitution and act in the best interests of this nation. Don’t ask how Hitler or the Bolsheviks took power, or how the Jews so meekly succumbed to their fate. We’re showing exactly how it happened. Fiddle music, anyone?

Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.

GOP needs return to limited government agenda

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

Now that Democrats have won the White House and have widened their margin of control in Congress, does this signify that American voters have moved to the left?

Many Republicans question this claim. And a new report from the Pew Research Center seems to verify that America is still a right of center as a country. But the picture gets murky when you look at the details. And this murkiness presents a considerable challenge for Republicans who are trying to figure out where to steer their party.

According to the just published report, more Americans today call themselves conservative than liberal, and the relative percentages in each category has hardly changed since George W. Bush was elected to his first term in 2000.

Thirty eight percent of Americans self-identify as conservative, 21 percent as liberal, and 36 percent as moderate. This compares to 36 percent, 18 percent and 38 percent, respectively, in 2000.

But taking a closer look at what this means leaves you scratching your head. You have to wonder what it means today to think of yourself as conservative.

When asked if the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, only 38 percent of those who said they are "conservative" said yes. And 50 percent of "conservatives" said they favor government guaranteeing health care "even if it means raising taxes."

Although 71 percent of "conservatives" said they oppose gay marriage, only slightly more than half, 52 percent, said that abortion should be illegal.

Many Republicans point to the fact that traditional marriage initiatives won in all three states where they were on the ballot -- California, Florida, and Arizona -- as evidence for the conservatism of the country. But pro-life initiatives lost in all three states where they were on ballots -- California, South Dakota, and Colorado.

What can be the message here for those vying for leadership of the Republican Party?

Some argue that the party should lighten up on the social agenda. The party is all white, they say, and there is no future without Latinos and blacks.

But consider the obvious. First, conservatives define the Republican Party. According to this study, 68 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative.

Second, it should be obvious from the above, that if conservatives are rooted anywhere, it's more in the social agenda than in the fiscal and limited government agenda. Where in the world would the party be if the leadership tried to uproot from social conservatism?

Third, consider what is going on with blacks and Latinos.

In this same Pew survey, 25 percent of all Democrats called themselves conservatives. But among these same Democrats, 35 percent of blacks call themselves conservative compared to 21 percent of whites.

Why? Blacks are social conservatives. Blacks understand the havoc that moral relativism has caused in their communities. And, this is also the case with Latinos.

As was widely reported, blacks and Latinos voted for Proposition 8 in California, supporting traditional marriage, despite the majority of them also voting for President-elect Barack Obama.

So where is the logic in Republicans abandoning social conservatism in order to reach blacks and Latinos?

It appears that the message getting lost is the importance of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Health care is almost 20 percent of our national economy. Too many are not getting what it will mean when bureaucrats will define what health care is and when the IRS comes knocking to check on the policy you bought. Too many seem to have forgotten that prosperity is created by individual freedom and creativity and not government programs.

These are tough times and families are under duress. Perhaps it's tempting to think that opening the door to more government is a good idea. Particularly in an environment where every day another half trillion-dollar check is being cut in Washington for bailout programs.

When most Americans say they are conservative, they mean it. Too many, however, are forgetting that this means limited government as well as traditional values. We need new, energetic Republican leaders to get this message across.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Lessons from the Pilgrims for 21st Century America

Thanksgiving is a great day for the retelling of the abysmal failure of the notion that would be popularized by Karl Marx.

We usually think of Marxism and its slightly more benevolent brother socialism as being relatively new, and that is true on a world scale. But the idea that human nature can be denied and Utopian sentiments will lead everyone to gleefully share their resources--no matter how hard or how little they have worked for their share--has been around a long time.

The Roman Empire flirted with it, and it contributed to their decline.

But some Americans flirted with socialism long before Karl Marx was ever born. And like everyone who has tried it and had the intellectual honesty to give it an objective appraisal, they found it to be the usual pathetic failure.

Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily tells of how the Pilgrims played with socialism... and it almost cost them their lives.

To say that social experiment was a total failure would be an understatement. The first winter spelled death and disease and hunger for the colony because the Pilgrims had arrived too late in the season to plant crops and build adequate shelters. Half of them died. The following spring, however, they planted and hunted and fished to get by – just barely. They did invite some of the friendly Indians to join them in their first "Thanksgiving" celebration. But they were not thanking the Indians. They were thanking God for pulling them through.

As William Bradford wrote in his journal: "And thus they found the Lord to be with them in all their ways, and to bless their outgoings and incomings, for which let His holy name have the praise forever, to all posterity."

Nevertheless, Bradford remained troubled by the colony's inability to prosper. He found the answer by studying the Bible and revisiting the notion of private property and incentized hard work.

He wrote about it in 1623: "So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. ... This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times, that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could, this was thought injustice. … And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them."

In other words, the introduction of the idea of private property saved the Pilgrims – made their experiment successful.

America obviously needs to read and heed this lesson, and it needs the lesson BADLY, since just earlier this month we elected a transparently socialist president.

Despite the idealistic notions of Marxists, socialists and liberals, human nature does not change and has never changed since the Garden of Eden.

Socialism never works better, either. While throwing more money at it can stave off the inevitable results, those end results remain inevitable for the civilization that doggedly insists on riding that horse to the bitter end--over a cliff of disappointment, decay and destruction.

It's not too late to turn around, America. Let's return to our historic roots of freedom, personal responsibility and limited government before it's too late to stop the horse.

Parker: We fail to learn from history

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

How can you not feel that emptiness in the pit of your stomach as you watch our financial markets spin downward? The broad stock market indices are down well over 40 percent since the beginning of the year. Losses are somewhere in the neighborhood of $9 trillion.

The real economic realities behind these numbers are starting to show up. The only question at this point is how severe the recession we are now entering will be.

Maybe, when everyone is depressed I am supposed to write cheery things to encourage folks. But I can't, because I care about our country and what I see is not encouraging.

We just had a presidential election that in some circles produced a lot of euphoria. But I believe that at some point -- I hope sooner rather than later -- many Americans are going to wake up and realize that this election was not a cure for our problems but a symptom of the disease.

I think this is what our crashing financial markets are telling us.

There is a well-known quote from a less well-known philosopher -- George Santayana -- that those who don't remember history will repeat it.

The failure of communism and socialism is not that far behind us. Yet Americans cannot seem to recall that it happened -- and why it happened.

What characterizes these systems? Government control. Central planning. And Godlessness.

Let's consider the sad and pathetic state of our American automobile companies.

As the chairmen of GM, Ford, and Chrysler sat in Washington begging for public money to survive, Honda was celebrating the opening of a new non-union plant in Greensburg, Ind., which will produce 200,000 vehicles annually.

The starting hourly wage at this plant will be $18.41 per hour -- about $10 less than at the American companies. There were 33,000 applicants for 900 job openings.

Americans want to work, can work, and can compete with anyone. They just need to be free to do it.

In 1970, GM had 50 percent of the U.S. auto market. Today it has 20 percent. What happened?

The world changed in 1973. We were hit with the oil shock. The oil producing countries' cartel, OPEC, discovered its power, and drove up energy prices.

The power of a free country and free markets is that people, when left alone, will adjust to change and do what they need to do. In fact, that's what happened in businesses that were left alone. Changes and adjustments were made and overall the country is about twice as energy efficient today as it was in 1970.

But in our high profile auto industry that's not what happened. Our politicians, with cooperation from our auto industry executives, decided that the auto companies could not be left to their own resources to adjust to new realities.

First, we enacted import quotas on Japanese cars. Second, we enacted fuel standards to dictate to our car companies what kind of cars to make. And, of course, third, the power of the union was left intact.

Now look where we are. We have a destroyed industry that is the product not of Americans not being able to compete, but of allowing itself to become dependent on government.

This is why our auto companies have failed. This is why communist and socialist countries have failed.

A few days ago Rahm Emanuel, who Barack Obama has picked to be his chief of staff, spoke to a gathering of CEOs at a Wall Street Journal conference in Washington.

He went through the agenda to expect from the Obama administration. He sounded like a commissar from the Soviet Union. Government control and planning in health care, energy, the economy, and financial markets.

Why are our financial markets so pessimistic? They are bracing. The market sees the sad news that Americans have not learned from history. And it looks like we are about to relive its hard lessons.

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Repairing the Foundations of a Nation Under Assault, Part 2

Previously I discussed the need to rebuild America's foundation at the most basic level in order to save this "last best hope."

A majority of Americans have forgotten our historic roots of freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. It's not enough anymore just to point out the need for a return to traditional Americanism; too many people don't understand what that means and lack the capacity for analytical thought. We must go back to the basics and explain why traditional Americanism is good and why the modern trend toward socialism is bad. People in our self-centered culture must be educated as to "what's in it for them" before they can move on to acting and voting in a manner based on "what's in it for society" or better still "what's right."

We will need to educate our fellow Americans because the institutions which have historically done so--the institutions of education and journalism--have demonstrated they are no longer willing to do so. Traditional Americans must therefore work in and within those institutions to foster change. We must also engage our fellow Americans on a personal level--at work, at church, across the back yard fence, and at the ball game.

But educating and providing facts is still not enough. Fundamental change is needed in the hearts of the American people. Since leaving our roots, we have spawned generations who have not cultivated a moral compass. We will not return America to societal greatness unless we cultivate a strong moral compass in the people.

PART 1

People also no longer understand the relationship between private morality and public behavior. Since the days of Bill Clinton we've been told that it doesn't matter if someone is a scoundrel and dirtbag in their personal life; what matters is whether they're a good leader.

But we saw with Bill Clinton that his "private morality" or lack thereof dragged the nation through the mud hole of his depraved infidelity. We also saw him lie to the American people--not only about his unzipped fly but about policy issues--almost every time his mouth opened. He lied about seeing black churches burning in Arkansas, reducing the size of government (he gutted the military while bloating the bureaucracy), lied about reining in the welfare state (congressional Republicans did this), and he lied about reducing spending (again, congressional Republicans did this). It was almost impossible to keep up with his lies and lack of faithfulness to the people he was elected to serve.

And in the same way he was derelict in his duty to be faithful to his wife, he was derelict in his duty to protect the United States...

READ MORE...

Constant Conservative Catches Missed Truths on Charity

Another great piece at the Constant Conservative today. The Constant Conservative actually mirrors some of the thoughts I had when I read this pro-socialist article at the Rapid City Journal yesterday.

Don't get me wrong. I am an enthusiastic supporter of private charity. I have a number of friends who work at charities (both as staff and volunteers) and I donate to charity on a regular basis myself. I think that people and private companies donating money and goods to help those in need is a wonderful thing--it's exactly how American is supposed to work.

What I DO oppose is socialism, the government-enforced version of charity which takes wealth from one person without their consent and gives it to another who may or may not need it (after filtering it through the sticky hands of an army of bureaucrats along the way).

What the Constant Conservative points out here that I appreciate so much is that many people not on the take from the government (and their fellow citizens) already live on or around the amount mentioned in the article. Living modestly is not such an alien and impossible thing as it is made out to be.

Another truth that I appreciate the Constant Conservative for pointing out is that food stamps (the socialist program being promoted by this article) are not intended to be a way of life. They are not intended to be a permanent or even long-term solution, but a temporary aid while people get back on their own feet.

In fact, no charity--whether private or government-enforced--should become a way of life. Many of us hit a rough patch and need a hand...temporarily.

What we don't need is an opiate that robs us of human dignity and the will to meet our personal responsibilities.

Many people with severe disabilities manage to take care of themselves, and I have personally known a number of them over my lifetime. These include people with disabilities such as Down syndrome, various forms of mental impairment, blindness, paraplegics and even quadriplegics. I've had extensive work done on my vehicle by a mechanic with only one hand; one arm ends somewhere around his elbow.

Most people, if they have the desire and motivation, are capable of meeting their own needs. For the few who are not, one of the duties of family is meeting the needs of fellow family members who are incapable.

Government charity is counter to the way America is supposed to work, and counter to Biblical charity.

The founders said of government charity:

- A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

The Bible says of charity:

- If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

- Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exodus 23:3)

- Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

- If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

- These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

- As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

- If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)

Government should not be usurping or substituting for family responsibility. Nor should it be excusing personal responsibility.

Thanks, Constant Conservative, for pointing out these important truths that the "objective" media somehow missed.

Repairing the Foundations of a Nation Under Assault, Part 1

Many conservatives are not afraid to speak their mind and even speak up in the public arena for their values. But almost none of us (myself included) are consistently doing what must be done to positively impact our decaying culture.

Many of us grew up having been taught the founding principles of our great nation. Often our parents told us of our country's noble ideals and the things that make America great. If we grew up several decades ago, we might even have been lucky enough to be taught some of this in public school.

People who recognize the great founding principles of the United States, understand the inestimable value of personal freedom and responsibility, and cherish our heritage of limited government are usually known as "conservatives."

Even if we weren't taught these things as children, some of us have learned somewhere along the way that the liberal policies proffered by the Democrats (really Marxist policies) are antithetical to the principles of Americanism. People who didn't know this to begin with but later came to realize it are usually described as "liberals who were mugged by reality."

Sadly, few are learning these lessons today, and few have for decades.

Our public education system has acquiesced to if not embraced liberalism and has foisted that ideology on our children even as it has attempted to erase the history of our Christian heritage and origins of limited government.

Our media establishment sold out lock, stock and barrel to liberalism decades ago. From the movies to television to music to journalism, there is only a constant stream of revisionist history, derision of traditional values and shameless promotion of liberalism as the ultimate and only reality. Moral ambiguity is the best we can hope for in almost all media fare.

This flood of propaganda has proven very effective in producing one or more generations that are almost entirely ignorant of their heritage, oblivious to world history, and lack even the basic analytical skills necessary to sift truth from lies.

This brainwashed culture is what we face in the arena of ideas to day, and it is what conservatives must deal with as we try to turn our culture around from its headlong plunge toward the abyss.

We don't have to like it, but we must acknowledge it, deal with it, compensate for it...and then overcome it.

READ MORE...

Ghilarducci 401k Taxing Scheme Exposed

A couple of weeks ago it came to light that House Democrats were looking at taking away the tax breaks for 401(k) retirement accounts and implementing another socialist ponzi scheme--via a new 5% tax hike.

Democrats are capitalizing on the recent economic downturn (which was of their own making) for this new opportunity to push more big-government solutions on the American people...and to tax you for the privilege.

Incidentally, these are the same Democrats who, while oblivious to the fact that their first socialist retirement system Social Security is fundamentally broken and about to fall, are oh-so-concerned about the 401k private retirement system which has helped expose their Social Security ponzi scheme for the sick horse it is.

Enter economist Teresa Ghilarducci from the New School for Social Research in New York. She rolled out the proposal socialist Democrats are salivating over at an October 7 hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee run by Rep. George Miller (D-CA).

CNBC describes the plan:

Under her plan, workers would receive a annual $600 tax refund if they set aside 5 percent of their pay into a retirement account run by the Social Security Administration, which would then invest globally in risky assets to seek high returns.

From that pool, workers would be paid a guaranteed 3 percent a year indexed to inflation.

The change would encourage workers not to hang on to jobs longer than planned.

Because their returns would be guaranteed, workers would be able to retire on schedule, she said.

"We need people to retire when the economy tanks in order to keep up aggregate demand and to reduce pressure on the labor market. And the only way to do that is to unhook the finance markets from retirement income," she told Reuters.

Wow! A whole $600 tax refund? Can you spend that any way you'd like...or does it require government approval first?

Ghilarducci's plan was first published on Nov. 20, 2007 in the Economic Policy Institute's Agenda for Shared Prosperity. You can read the 20-page paper here.

The Carolina Journal Online also has a report on the plan.

In her plan, Ghilarducci sounds like a good Marxist who would fit right in with Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" mentality. She uses good prol-friendly language about how private retirement accounts are "skewed to the wealthy" and “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities.”

Oh my! That one person might actually have more than another! Such a terrifying thought in the socialist Utopia Ghilarducci and fellow Marxists have in mind for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The "mainstream" media is of course pooh-poohing this news, with some using creative wording to portray that the talk of this isn't really happening, and others simply patting Americans on the head and assuring them the eventuality just won't be realized.

Does anyone seriously think that the Democrat Party, with control of both Congress and the White House, won't move forward aggressively on such an idea? This is, after all, the party that gave America the bloated, inefficient and terminal Social Security system. This is, after all, the party that is on record time after time after time disparaging the private sector which brought our nation unparalleled prosperity while promoting the idea that government bureaucrats are smarter than you and the free market.

Does anyone seriously think big-government politicians wouldn't also rob these new retirement funds (which comes from the 5% they taxed from you) and spend this money on every new socialist program with which they become enamoured? As they have already done with Social Security?

This is simply another socialist scheme to separate you from more of your own money and make you more dependent on the government for everything.

This is the wrong direction for America.

America was founded as a free nation with a free economy. The United States was founded on the idea of personal responsibility and limited government--elements essential to keep a free people free.

The U.S. Constitution limits the scope and authority of our government to the enumerated powers found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Note that you do not find authority there for government charity or government-administered retirement systems.

If we want to remain a free people, we must turn this ship around, folks. We have sailed too far in the direction of socialist mediocrity and bondage. We must turn back before we dock with a permanent prison of our own making.

Joe the Plumber Cant Get Through to Marxist CNN Newsman

The Marxist arrogance of this "newsman" is incredible!

The "newsman" can't grasp why Joe Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber would have a problem with taxing people making over $250,000 (or something less) when Joe himself doesn't make that much.

This "reporter" aka "DNC operative" can't seem to get it through his socialist skull that it is a matter of principle for Joe the Plumber that one person should not have their property taken from them and given to another person against their will.

"I'm not ridin' on anybody elses back. I'm doing it on my own," Joe said.

Incredulously, the reporter asks it yet again.

The concept of not sticking it to the rich just seems to bounce of this Marxist "newsmans" head. It won't go in.

Maybe that's it: socialists like this "reporter" have no principles, so they're baffled when they encounter someone who has them. They just don't get it. They operate by "What's in it for me" and nothing more. That someone might give a rip about the rights of another person is alien to them.

I noticed that when Joe the Plumber educated this "newsman" on Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy, he shifted to the "Well, McCain is no sweetheart, either" strategy. True, but McCain isn't even in the same league of wealth redistribution promotion as Obama.

The only thing I would add to Joe's statement is that all the things government should do and does do like roads, emergency services, national defense, etc. are not the issue. I don't think anyone has a problem paying taxes for necessary services.

What galls me is to have the fruits of my labor taken and given to someone else for their direct benefit. In other words, the roughly 50% of our federal budget that goes to social programs--that are NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and a million other welfare programs.

And now Dems want to expand socialism even further by getting rid of 401(k) tax breaks and forcing you to pour still more money into a government retirement system. They can't tolerate the thought of the private sector doing 401k retirement funds, but can't wait to seize more of your money...so they can spend it on everything else as they squander the Social Security trust fund.

We have a $3 trillion budget, and half or more of it is spent illegally on programs that government has no authority for and should not be doing--individuals and the private sector should be doing them (and used to before the socialist FDR turned our Constitution on it's ear).

There is not a single, solitary shred of constitutional authority for these programs, yet money is taken out of one American's pocket and put in another American's pocket when the second American has done nothing to earn that money--and the first American was not consulted for his "charity."

Consider what the founders said on this:

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money." — Congressman Davy Crockett

For an individual to help another person, to give of their possessions charitably, is a wonderful and blessed thing. (In fact, conservatives are better at it than liberals--Obama and Biden are pathetic at personal charity).

But for government to force one person to surrender their property so it can be given to another person is not only theft, it robs the giver of any blessing for having given freely. It also robs the receiver of the genuine compassion and relationship with the giver. And in far too many cases, there is no genuine need...which erodes human dignity, the work ethic and personal responsibility.

I know the Marxists have had near-total control of our universities and public schools for decades, but you'd think that some reality would seep into people's brains after they get their education behind them.

This "newsman" is sad proof that this isn't happening.

Conservatives have some serious educating to do if we're going to salvage our country and return it to its historic great ideals.

The Simplistic Notion of Property Rights

We're in trouble, folks.

The libs aren't even bothering to hide their Marxist ideology at all anymore.

A couple of weeks ago we heard Barack Obama tell Joe the Plumber in broad daylight that he wanted to take Joe's property and "spread the wealth."

Now the Weekly Standard reveals Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) talking about the "simplistic notion" that people have property rights.

The American worker has produced more per person at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth.

"This simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."

"This simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it."

Do you have any simplistic notions that you are entitled to keep your TV set if I want it?

Do you have any simplistic notions that if I like your car better than mine, I can come over and drive it away? If you have two vehicles, certainly I'm entitled to one of them. You don't need two.

Do you have any simplistic notions that you're entitled to a big-screen LCD TV when I don't have one?

The Founders would be aghast that such an idiotic and alien notion could come from an elected official in America.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” - Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence” - John Adams

Indeed!

Have we really sunk so far from Americanism that liberals feel free to be this open about their Marxist views and intentions?

Have we become so morally bankrupt that we have widely embraced the politics of greed, class envy and coveting other people's property...and consider envy, covetousness and theft a political virtue?

If we get a Democrat White House from the election today, we know God isn't doing us any special favors anymore. We'll know we're getting exactly what our dark hearts deserve.

Democrat Speechwriter Defects to McCain

On the eve of the election, one of Barack Obama's top campaigners has defected and gone over to the McCain campaign.

From WorldNetDaily:

Wendy Button, a frequent columnist for the Huffington Post, where she is credited with writing speeches for Democratic Sens. John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John Kerry and for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, made the announcement in a blog post called "So Long, Democrats" on The Daily Beast.

Button's reasons for defecting from the Democrats include false campaign slogans, poor economic policy and her admission that McCain was right about the surge in Iraq; but her argument begins with outrage over the way the Obama campaign attacked...

READ MORE...

Which Direction 'Change'?

BY PAUL E. SCATES

"It is an unquestionable truth, that the body of the people in every country desire sincerely its prosperity. But it is equally unquestionable that they do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise." -- Alexander Hamilton (speech to Ratifying Convention of New York, June 1788)

You know this scenario: A husband and wife are on a trip, and they find themselves on a road that’s not mentioned in their directions. As most wives will tell you, the wife’s suggestion to turn back to the last highway on their directions is most often met with a response similar to, “No, let’s just keep going; surely we’ll run into something we recognize up ahead.”

Sometimes, the husband is right, and you run into a highway that’s listed on your directions or on your map. But let’s say you missed a turn, and are actually heading away from your desired destination? The longer you stay on that road, the farther you get from where you want to go.

On the eve of the 2008 presidential election, that’s the situation in which the United States finds itself. For almost two hundred years this nation enjoyed the most freedom and the greatest material prosperity of any nation in history. That prosperity is the result of free markets, the ‘capitalism’ that so many on the Left speak of so derisively. Those freedoms are the result of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, another object of scorn by many mindless and willfully ignorant would-be messiahs.

Funny, isn’t it, how people from outside the U.S. can see the benefits of our system so much clearer than many who have enjoyed that liberty and prosperity directly? Just the other day I heard an Englishman on a call-in radio show saying that the United States is “the most free, most prosperous and friendliest nation on earth.” He went on to chide the listening audience: “The U.S. is also the most capitalist nation on earth…do you think that’s some weird coincidence, people?” He continued, admonishing Americans to not throw away all that for the empty promises of a socialist nirvana. Having lived most of his life in the socialism of Great Britain, he knew of which he spoke.

When’s the last time you heard someone on the Left extol the virtues of this nation, without the obligatory listing of our failures and sins? Yes, we’ve made mistakes, including slavery…but we’ve remedied those mistakes. That’s the great promise of liberty: we have the ability to change our direction, to turn away from a bad destination and back towards the goal of “justice and liberty for all” that the Founding generation, in their wisdom, established. That will not be the case in a nation where government reigns supreme.

And make no mistake…a socialist system demands that government reigns supreme. History shows us that people will not willingly tolerate the material deprivation, political and social chaos and misery that the socialist system inevitably produces, so the government finds it “necessary” to remove most or all of their political liberty. Don’t believe me; you have the Internet: do even a brief search of “socialist nations” and see what you find.

What has socialism to do with this election, you ask? Barack Obama is an unrepentant, classical socialist. Yes, I believe his intentions are good…but so were those of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, et al. The nations where these men (and others) became notorious for brutality, political oppression, social upheaval and dire poverty all wanted “change.” They had suffered at the hands of tzars, warlords and dictators, and welcomed the “change” offered by the socialist fantasy – equal sharing of the wealth, a classless society, etc. Too bad they weren’t privy to Winston Churchill’s famous maxim: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Without that wisdom to guide them, they bought into the noble-sounding fantasy that resulted in 100 years of misery, deprivation and oppression. That’s the same fantasy that Obama holds; that is the “fundamental transformation of this nation” he is talking about, albeit in veiled terms.

The noted author C.S. Lewis wrote: “We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be and if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, ‘progress’ means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

For the past fifty years the United States has been on the wrong road. We, the people, have stood by an let politicians in both parties expand the scope and power of the federal government, exactly what Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al, warned us against. History’s lesson on this is indisputable: countries with all-powerful governments are inevitably places where poverty, oppression and human misery abound. It matters little what those governments call themselves – the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea, the “parliamentary democracy” of Zimbabwe, the Somali Democratic Republic, et al – when ‘government’ has autonomy, the people suffer.

Obama has already shown, in flashes, the willingness to dismantle the very Constitution that enabled him to rise to his position in the Senate, to denigrate those who disagree with him (Bush, McCain, Palin, et al) and to sic the dogs of government on those who have the gall to question his “spread the wealth” socialist fantasy (Joe the Plumber). Imagine what he might be and do with the power of the presidency behind him.

Obama is driving headlong down the road towards socialism, and many Americans are undiscerning enough to think we should follow. But to get to where we want this nation to be requires that we refuse to just charge ahead into the unknown, as he would have us do. We must turn around and go back to the Founding principles (individual liberty, open markets and, especially, limited government) that provided the greatest liberty and prosperity that mankind has ever known. The rest of the world recognizes the benefits that come from those principles; are we so foolish that we must lose our liberties and prosperity before we appreciate the system that provided them?


Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.

Sarah Palin: Two Big Reasons to Vote McCain-Palin

Sarah Palin breaks down two of the main reasons to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket and to oppose the Obama-Biden ticket with all our might.

1. Socialism is counterproductive and NOT the American way

2. We need a strong commander-in-chief to ensure solid national defense and not coddle our enemies.

Obama's vision is far from that of Founding Fathers

BY STAR PARKER
FOUNDER & PRESIDENT
COALITION ON URBAN RENEWAL & EDUCATION

Pushing back on accusations from John McCain that he's a socialist, Barack Obama said, "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret Communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

Once again, we get the Obama oratorical fog. The problem isn't what he does with his toys or sandwich, it's what he sees as legitimate to do, under authority of government, with mine and yours.

"(McCain) has called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class."

Obama's plans go much further than using the tax code to redistribute wealth.

He's got about $700 billion in so-called refundable tax credits in mind, direct money transfers to individuals, to finance his social engineering ideas in education, child care, and environmental policy.

We're talking about a trillion dollars in new government spending to pay for his government-directed schemes to deal with just about every aspect of our lives.

Don Boudreaux, chairman of George Mason University's economics department, says it's more accurate to call Obamanomics "Socialism-lite", rather than outright Socialism, because we're not talking about overt government ownership of our manufacturing and financial entities.

But the line of distinction is fine, and the slope to overt and blatant socialism, as Boudreaux points out, is pretty slippery.

The real question is "So what?" Okay, so our country becomes more socialized and, by definition, less free. What difference does it make? After all, voters will have transmitted power to Obama in open and free elections. Isn't that what it's all about?

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."

Obama will have succeeded in selling a vision of America that has little to do with the vision of its founding because so many Americans are now detached from and uninformed by the documents that defined the country -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible.

If we randomly surveyed voters and asked, "How is the role of government defined in the Declaration of Independence?" how many could answer the question?

How many could answer that the Declaration talks about our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and, "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among Men..."?

Government's job, according to the founders, is to protect individual liberty and guard against intrusions on our life and property -- the very wholesale intrusions that Barack Obama will begin in earnest once he is empowered by American voters.

There is no freedom without law and courts. And what is law for Obama?

He'll appoint judges who have "the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

The Bible tells us, regarding courts and justice, "Do not glorify a destitute person in his grievance."

Our biblical tradition, which is clear that we should love our neighbor and give charity, is also clear that courtrooms are the place to objectively apply law and not for politics.

History is filled with the dismal lessons of nations where law was turned into molding clay and citizens who abdicated personal responsibility for their lives to messianic sounding demagogues. But when we stop reading, thinking, and taking seriously the eternal truths of tradition, the only thing left is to re-learn through experience what history has already taught.

Apparently this is where much of America stands today.

And the rest?

Recall the words of Samuel Adams. "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education and author of the new book White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.

Prior to her involvement in social activism, Star Parker was a single welfare mother in Los Angeles, California. After receiving Christ, Star returned to college, received a BS degree in marketing and launched an urban Christian magazine. The 1992 Los Angeles riots destroyed her business, yet served as a springboard for her focus on faith and market-based alternatives to empower the lives of the poor.

Obama the Thief and Envy-Monger Says Property Rights are Selfishness

Like a good Soviet, er, Marxist, er, socialist, er, Democrat, Barack Obama is trying to put a positive spin on his Marxist plans to spread your wealth around to those who haven't earned it.

From ABC News:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

I'd like to know when Barack Obama made a virtue out of envy and theft.

You see, when you take someones money from them without their consent, that's theft. It doesn't matter if you give it to someone else; it's still theft.

Want to try it? Go into your neighbor's house without asking, take his TV set or grab his wallet and go give it to another neighbor. See if he's okay with that. In fact, see if the police are okay with it.

It's called legal plunder, folks.

Besides, Americans are the most giving people in the world--and conservative Americans are the most giving of all Americans.

The Index of Global Philanthropy finds that in 2006, private philanthropy accounted for $11 billion more than the U.S. government gave in foreign charitable aid. Great Britain, the next most generous, gave less than 10 time less than the U.S.

Americans are at least as generous here at home, giving to everything from homeless centers to soup kitchens to pregnancy centers and so on. Well, that is, most Americans are generous.

Ironically, socialists like Barack Obama are typically the least generous.

ABC reported that the Obamas are charity cheapskates:

The Obamas' donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income."

So is his running mate Joe Biden. The Hill reported

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.

Conservatives, meanwhile, are consistently shown to be more charitable and less selfish.

Liberals are generous alright: generous with your money, seldom with their own.

Socialism and wealth redistribution didn't cut it for the Founders and their understanding that limited government was necessary to maintain freedom, property rights and a good work ethic:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

This socialist is just trying to cover his tracks since Joe the Plumber exposed him for the Marxist he is.

The Sorry State of Free Health Care

Socialism just doesn't work, folks. The longer it's tried, the more it costs and the less it works.

The National Center for Policy Analysis looks at the pathetic wait times in countries like Canada and Britain where they have socialized medicine and finds that while our medical system in the United States leaves a lot to be desired, we're doing pretty well compared to the socialists:

- The Fraser Institute found that Canada's median waiting times from a patient's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist, depending on the procedure, averages from 5 to 40 weeks; the wait for diagnostics, such as MRI or CT, ranges between 4 and 28 weeks.

- In England, 750,000 are awaiting hospital admission, and the National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008.

- In both countries, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure.

The article also states that 1 out of 3 Canadian doctors sends patients to the States for treatment each year. Why? Their patients might be dead before they got treated in the worker's paradise of Canada.

I lived under the British National Health Service for three years. This "free" health care creates a crippling tax burden for British citizens, and they get lousy service for all their sacrifice.

Once when I had food poisoning, I sat in the waiting room of a British hospital for about 2 hours vomiting in a garbage can (after having spent the two hours before that also throwing up) until a doctor finally saw me. By then my stomach was empty (and I think I'd evacuated several pounds of stomach tissue as well).

The medical care I received? The doctor said, "Yeah, mate, looks like you had some kind of food poisoning, but since you've got it all out of your system now, just go home and take it easy."

Wow. Isn't government health care great?

Please, Lord; don't allow liberals to impose "free" health care on the American people!

Joe the Plumber Punished for Blaspheming the Government-God

What happens when you blaspheme against the almighty government-god?

What happens when you show disrespect to the government-god's high priest the Obamessiah Barack Obama?

The prophet Big Brother comes down on you.

The Columbus Dispatch says Joe the Plumber received a very close and intrusive look from the government deity after he exposed the Obamessiah as the High Priest of the Government-God, and the Obamessiah's holy plan to "spread the wealth" among all his children.

It seems they not only looked into any connections Joe had with the child support system, but also

whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote.

Jones-Kelley made the revelations in a letter to Ohio Senate President Bill M. Harris, R-Ashland, who demanded answers on why state officials checked out Wurzelbacher.

I think it's pretty obvious why some government-worshippers in Ohio government did it: to discredit a blasphemer.

"See, he receives blessings from the Government-God, too! That makes it okay."

Or so they hoped to be able to claim.

If this is happening now, before the Obamessiah even gets a chance to occupy the Holy Headquarters of the Almighty Government-God, what will life be like if he does get elected?

What will life be like for blaspheming Americans who don't worship at the Holy Trough of Government Largess?

Make no mistake: there is a price to be paid.

But thanks, Joe the Plumber, for standing up to this false god.