Redistributing Whose Wealth?

by Burt PrelutskyChronwatch

For some peculiar reason, America’s left-wingers object to being called Socialists. In fact, we have only one member of Congress, Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, who has the gumption to admit that he is one. Still, so far as I can tell, he’s no more socialistic than any of the other leftist pinheads in Washington. I mean, the truth is, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Charles Rangel, Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee and all the rest of that silly crowd vote exactly the same as Sanders, so why aren’t they equally honest about their true identities?

Instead, they walk around like a bunch of mild-mannered Clark Kents, but as soon as a vote is called, they rush off to the nearest phone booth and emerge wearing a cape and little booties, just in time to vote for ObamaCare, trillion dollar stimulus packages, and cap-and-trade.

What is even more disturbing is that it’s not just the liberal media that denies the obvious fact that the “S” on Barack Obama’s own chest stands for Socialist. I keep hearing such people as Bill O’Reilly and Michael Medved taking members of their audience to task for even suggesting such a thing. I’m sorry, folks, but the emperor is not only naked as a jaybird, but he’s a bigger left-wing dingbat than Hugo Chavez.

Let us not forget that Obama was the presidential candidate who told Joe the Plumber that redistributing wealth was a good thing. Lest anyone think that was a one-time slip of the tongue, it was also Obama who announced that the terrible failing of the Constitution, the Supreme Court and even the Civil Rights movement, was that none of them ever promoted the redistribution of wealth.

Well, the way I see it, redistributing one’s own wealth is called charity. Redistributing other people’s, when done by the government, is totalitarianism. When perpetrated by an individual, such as Jesse James, Willie Sutton, or Bernard Madoff, it’s called a felony.

To be honest, there have been times, even here in America, when socialism has been benign. We’ve had agrarian communes that fostered a share-the-wealth policy, although it wasn’t wealth, so much as labor and food that was shared. Israel has a long history of such communes, known as kibbutzim. The best thing about such communities, aside from the fact that people live there of their own free choice, is that sloths and troublemakers are easily spotted and banished, unlike the way it is in capitalist societies, where even able-bodied sluggards and ne’er-do-wells are able to survive through the generosity of the productive.

The way it works here in America, I regret to say, is that the chronically indolent are either given welfare or elected to political office.