Pow, right in the kisser.

Here’s a snippet…

…
Capitalism is not the source of our problems, as an economy or as a society, and capitalists are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be. As a group, we employ many millions of taxpaying people, pay their salaries, provide them with healthcare coverage, start new companies, found new industries, create new products, fill store shelves at Christmas, and keep the wheels of commerce and progress (and indeed of government, by generating the income whose taxation funds it) moving. To frame the debate as one of rich-and-entitled versus poor-and-dispossessed is to both miss the point and further inflame an already incendiary environment. It is also a naked, political pander to some of the basest human emotions - a strategy, as history teaches, that never ends well for anyone but totalitarians and anarchists.
…

Sums it up pretty damn well.

Warning: Language

Click here for the edited version.

In case you still think the Democrat party is anything other than a collection of communist and socialist dirtbags, check this out:

The Democratic Party moved a step closer to embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as its own with the top campaign arm for House Democrats sending around a petition urging people to “stand with” the movement.

In an email sent Monday morning, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Director Robby Mook appealed for signatures to an online petition in support of those who want “to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we’re not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans.”
…
Pelosi said she backs the protesters in their message.

“I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen. We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry,” she said.

Pelosi backs their message? Nancy, you ARE the establishment, moron.

This is an interesting development, however. You see, the “Occupy Wall Street” gang’s message reads almost verbatim to the “message” of the Communist Party USA.

Just remember these images as Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat party continue to “stand in solidarity” with these Communists and Socialists….

I couldn’t help but think, as I watched C-SPAN throughout the day Sunday, “If Ronald Reagan were alive today, what would he say to the American people about the actions of the D-baggers on Capitol Hill?” Then I remembered I needn’t wonder… for in 1961, Reagan told America what he thought of this health insurance bill disaster:

Timeless wisdom from a great leader. America sure needs a man like him again… now, more than ever.

Freudian slip - A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal an unconscious belief, thought, or emotion.

Must’ve had something else on her mind.

Timeless wisdom versus hopenchangy socialism.

In 2008, he told a private citizen on the campaign trail that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” A point he later said he did not regret making.

It’s probably no coincidence that his campaign offices in Houston were decorated with Che Guevara flags.

In 2001, he decried the “tragedy” of the government not redistributing more wealth.

And way back in 1995, here’s what he wrote in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father“:

Desperate times called for desperate measures, and for many blacks, times were chronically desperate. If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.

If nationalism could deliver. As it turned out, questions of effectiveness, and not sentiment, caused most of my quarrels with Rafiq. [Rafiq al-Shabazz, a “self-professed [Black] nationalist” (page 198)]

and…

That was the problem with people like Joyce [a college classmate of Italian, African-American, Native American, and French ethnicity]. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounced real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people. …The truth was that I understood [Joyce], her and all the other black kids who felt the way she did. In their mannerisms, their speech, their mixed-up hearts, I kept recognizing pieces of myself. And that’s exactly what scared me. Their confusion made me question my own racial credentials all over again. …To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. [pages 99-100]

If it walks like a Socialist and quacks like a Socialist…

Remember, the next President will likely have at least one, maybe two, opportunities to nominate a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. And we now know what qualities Barack Obama would look for in such a potential Justice. Here is a recording from an interview Obama gave to Chicago Public Radio in 2001 where he says it was a tragedy the Supreme Court didn’t tackle the issue of redistributing wealth.

UPDATE: Some Obama supporters are emailing saying that Obama’s message wasn’t focused on wanting the Supreme Court to address wealth redistribution, but rather that the civil rights movement didn’t do enough to enable legislation that would redistribute wealth. If that’s the case, I don’t think I’m any more comforted in the thought the Obama thinks we should use the legislative branch of government to redistribute the wealth of hard-working Americans to those he and his friends Pelosi and Reid think are more deserving.

The Democrats offer America failed policies, resistance to reform in the face of impending crisis resulting from those failed policies, the most inexperienced candidate in Presidential history who’s also the most liberal member of a Senate their party controls that enjoys a single-digit approval rating.

It’s no coincidence that bad news for America (whether it’s foreign policy or domestic economy) translates into good news for Democrats. Think about it.

Listen to Barack Obama, in his own words, admit that he’ll raise taxes and then explain that “spreading the wealth” is good for everybody.

Plumber: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”

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

Obama has tried to keep his economic plans vague up to this point… and for obvious reasons. As his own admission above shows, his plan has nothing to do with American values and everything to do with socialism and redistribution of wealth. The Wall Street Journal has dug a little deeper on the details of Obama’s plan, and it should come as no surprise what they’ve uncovered…

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]
…
Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.

As Ed points out, “These are not “tax cuts” but instead welfare grants based on specific social policy. It’s blatant redistributionism, as the money comes from tax increases on the wealthy.”

If it walks like a socialist and quacks like a socialist…