I’m really, really, really sorry that this video is from Fox News, but I haven’t been able to find the source video anywhere else and I really think you need to see it. It doesn’t have any talking heads speaking over it, no anchor offers his editorial opinion after it, it’s just Barack Obama’s own words. I’ve seen the longer version, this doesn’t do anything to take his words out of context; the split you’ll see it merely cutting out some pauses and a few “ums” and “ers”. Since the longer version did have talking heads over it, I’ve chosen to show this shortened version instead.
Anyway, watch and listen as Barack Obama personally answers a direct question from a plumber who owns his own small business:

Plumber: Your new tax plan’s gonna to tax me more, isn’t it?

Obama: It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just wanna make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have a chance at success too… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

“Spread the wealth around.” Read that again. Go ahead. Watch it again. Listen to what he’s saying. Listen to it.
Now tell me that’s not Socialism.

We’ve heard such statements before from Michelle Obama, we’ve heard it from people on the periphery of the campaign, we’ve even heard allusions to it from Obama. But this is the first time that I’m aware of where those words, such specific words, have come straight from the mouth of Obama while on the campaign trail. How much more obvious does it need to get before people realize that Obama is a flat out socialist?

Read more after the jump. I do hope you’ll continue reading, as this is one of the most important posts I’ve ever written. I’d greatly appreciate your kind attention.

The redistribution of wealth is a fundamental principle of socialism. It’s the belief that an individual does not have the right or the ability to control their own money, that the individual is a selfish creature who will not share with charitable causes. Because of that inherent selfishness of the individual, the government then mandates charity, forcing the individual to give up their hard-earned money. The government then believes it’s better at managing your money than you are, and decides for you what charitable causes your money should be spent on. This gives you less money to work with, less say about what your money is spent on, and less control over the funding and development of charitable causes and services.
The problem with this notion is the solid fact that the United States of America is the most charitable nation on Earth, either as a government or as a people. We have consistently given more to charities all around the world than any other nation on this planet. If we were so selfish, if we were so bad at determining the use of our own money, why would this be so? And why should we believe that a socialist nation would be any better at giving to charity than we are now? Socialism has been tried in so many nations, to such varying degrees, and history has so thoroughly proven that the more a nation sinks into socialism, the less giving, less charitable, less stable it becomes. How could we expect a different result?

It was one of our own forefathers, Benjamin Franklin, who said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Why should we believe that our nation would achieve greater results under Obama’s leadership than any socialist nation that came before us? What makes him so special? Or so arrogant?
He’s displayed such arrogance before, during a Democratic primary debate. When he was asked about his stance of raising the capital gains tax, he said that even though history has shown repeatedly that whenever the capital gains tax is raised revenue goes down, under his leadership, somehow the results would be different. This is the same arrogance that would lead anyone to believe that heading toward socialism would somehow lead to a positive outcome, despite the vast historical evidence to the contrary. Only arrogance could lead anyone to believe that following the advice of Karl Marx would produce anything but what we have already seen from communist Russia, Cuba, or China, or nations such as France or the United Kingdom who are already sinking into the pit of socialism.
In Russia, it destroyed their economy and they still haven’t recovered. In China, it has led to such vast oppression that it becomes difficult to comprehend the scope of the human rights violations that occur every single day. Their economy may be growing, but it’s only because the people have been fighting against communism to finally at long last embrace capitalism and the freedom that comes with it. In France we’re seeing such enormous unemployment and stagnation in their economy. Their people are unhappy, there’s violence and civil unrest among their people. Thousands die from simple heatwaves because their universal healthcare just doesn’t care at all. And the UK is facing such a massive recession, growing all the time, with unemployment soaring and a consistent loss of job growth.
People often say that Europe offers us a glimpse of our own future, five to ten years down the road. We have the benefit of learning from all of these examples! Is this really what we want our nation to look like? Or do we want to fight it?

We are far enough along that same road already and we are beginning to see its effects. The current economic crisis that is enveloping us can be directly related to the government interfering in the free market, i.e. socialism. Government tried to mandate the common sense of business, urging banks to change the very definition of their operations, ensuring loans that never would have been viable on their own. We’re seeing the havoc that’s wreaked when government sticks its dirty hand into the free market. Yet still, we’re allowing them to dig themselves in deeper into our market, our economy, our freedoms.

People say that corporations are dirty, that CEOs are greedy. But can’t the same be said of politicians? Which ones are easier to reform?
I had the benefit of participating in capitalism at a very young age. When I was only a teenager, I witnessed a very large corporation doing something very, very unethical to some of my young friends. This was one of the largest companies in the world, yet in only six months, I forced them to change their ways. How? Through the beauty of capitalism: I affected their income, threatened their survival, and through the all-mighty consumer’s dollar, forced them back onto the ethical path. The power of the boycott is the power of the people to control and correct the greed that can infect capitalism.
If, however, that company had been part of the government, would I have been able to accomplish anything at all? When you don’t like something that’s going on in the government, can you just boycott paying your taxes? No, they’ll force you to pay fines, they’ll send you to prison. Their survival doesn’t depend on you choosing to buy their product, their survival is guaranteed. To correct something in the government, you have to rely on your representatives, who – we know – are all too often not interested in what their constituents have to say. Why should they care? After all, they have billionaires paying for their campaigns, they have special interests wooing them daily, they have egos the size of New York City. Why should they care about the little people? Why should they care about your opinion?
Why, then, would you let these people take over a company? Why, then, would you give these people more power over you, your daily life, your money, and your business? With capitalism, you have the power to deny a company its life’s blood: money. But you can’t deny the government, and thus, you have lost all your power, all of your control. You have to rely on representatives, rather than the people themselves. I know, I’ve seen it. I corrected the bad behavior of one of the world’s largest company’s in only six months. Yet the entire United States is frustrated and disenfranchised with our government, yet what have we accomplished? Nothing.

The United States Congress right now has one of the lowest approval ratings in history. By and large, Americans feel detached from their government; they distrust it, they despise it, they don’t even feel that the government cares about them. When we feel so completely and so justifiably detached and disenfranchised from our government, why would we even contemplate giving it more power over us?

A few years ago, I actually visited Karl Marx’s grave. He was laid to rest in Highgate Cemetary, just north of London. I’d never realized before how ironic it is that Karl Marx’s gravestone is nothing but an enormous sculpture of his own head: it takes such an inflated head, such an enormous ego, to believe in the principles of socialism. Only arrogance could convince someone that they are so wise and all-knowing that they can spend another person’s hard-earned money better than the person who earned it in the first place. Only a massive egomaniac would dare to imagine that they could succeed where so many, many nations had failed following the same path.

Now is not the time for socialism. Now is not the time for bigger government. We cannot allow our government to work against us any longer, because we simply cannot afford it. I do not trust Obama or anyone else to determine how my wealth should be spread around. I do not trust any politician to make those decisions for me. The foundation of this nation was to get away from such arrogance, such control. I cannot fathom voting for it.