Tag Archives: sharing the wealth

Share Your Burrito ‘So Someone Else Can Have More’

Spread the wealth

Originally posted at American Thinker

Remember when candidate Barack Obama told Joe ‘the Plumber’ Wurzelbacher that “my attitude is … when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Mrs. Obama backed up the “spread the wealth around” message, but Michelle’s example involved food. 

FLOTUS maintained that in order for equity to abound in America, “someone [would have to] give up a piece of their pie so that someone else [could] have more.”

It was only a matter of time before Americans would feel emboldened enough to take the president and first lady’s redistribution comments literally and demand half of someone’s ‘pie,’ a couple of glugs of a Starbuck’s latte or, as in a recent case, half a burrito on a park bench outside a Mexican grill.

Here’s how it happened:  Concerned only with his own selfish needs, some hungry person decided to indulge in a burrito for lunch.  Based on the police report, it’s safe to assume that the burrito was purchased at “hole in the wallTacos Chukis, a Mexican restaurant in an upstairs mall on East Broadway in Seattle, Washington. Clearly unaware that “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” a whole $3.25 burrito was purchased for just one person.    

If the burrito buyer was a more thoughtful human being, he would have promoted Mexican food equity and chosen a taco for $1.60 and given the other $1.60 to someone less fortunate.  And if he had done that, there would have been five cents’ change left over to redistribute to someone else, too. But that’s not what happened. Instead, after buying food at the Mexican eatery, the customer chose to tuck into a big fat burrito in plain sight right outside the restaurant. That’s when he was approached by Mahamed M. Abdi, a 24-year-old African-American fellow dressed in a “gray cloth cap and a white fur coat.”

Seems Mr. Abdi took Michelle and Barry at their word and must have felt justified in demanding a piece of someone else’s pie.  In keeping with the president’s ‘share the wealth’ motto, Abdi demanded: “Give me a bite of your burrito.”   After all, didn’t Michelle Obama say something like, “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their [burrito] so that someone else can have more”?

The offended diner refused, and pointed out to Abdi that asking for a bite of a stranger’s “little donkey” is “rude!” 

Because the restaurant wasn’t giving out free burritos, and in keeping with fair-share principles, those able to throw around the big bucks for selections off the expensive side of the chalkboard menu should always be prepared to offer a couple of bites to those President Obama calls the “less fortunate among us.”

After all, at the end of the day, didn’t buying the burrito support a successful small business (built by somebody other than the owners)? That’s why, to prove his commitment to Mexican food redistribution, Abdi pushed the greedy burrito eater and again demanded a bite. 

The bite was not forthcoming.  Instead, after Mahamed “asked” a second time, with burrito in hand the insensitive diner rose from his seat outside the restaurant and attempted to vacate the vicinity.  That’s when, according to the Seattle Police Department report, Abdi punched the man in the head and ran away. 

On behalf of socialist presidents, walloping people who refuse to ‘share the wealth’ ought to be a government-approved tactic.  In America we have the Lois Lerner types who, unlike Mahamed Abdi, do the head-punching in a very dignified manner.

Meanwhile, back in Seattle, as a result of being beaten, thankfully, the burrito owner only had “very slight redness [on his] forehead.” The injured party did not request or require treatment at the non-Obamacare approved Seattle Children’s Hospital.  The assault victim also did not cite post-traumatic burrito heist disorder, nor was he so devastated that he needed Washington State-approved physician suicide assistance.

The police eventually caught up with and arrested the famished Mr. Abdi, who, in a desperate cry for help, yelled obscenities and spit on the Plexiglass divider from the back seat of the police car.  

Based on his rap sheet, Mr. Abdi is a man who, after being arrested more than a dozen times, clearly believes that wealth-sharing is a concept more people need to cheerfully embrace.  If the general public would just comply and share half of whatever they have whenever Mahamed wants it, it would do away with the need for him to assault Mexican restaurant customers.

What’s sad about the whole incident is that, based on policies that Michelle and Barack Obama promote, Abdi isn’t really a criminal.  He’s just ahead of his time in understanding what it means for others to willingly share their ‘piece of the pie’ with him and others like him.

Obama’s ‘Shared Prosperity’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

At one of four fundraisers in Illinois yesterday, the President of the United States said, “Chicago is an example of what makes this country great.” This in the city where a former ballet dancer-turned mayor called in Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam to police the mean streets and turned away Chick-fil-A for taking a stand for traditional marriage.

But that wasn’t the worst of it.  At one fundraiser held at Bridgeport Art Center, the always upbeat and encouraging Obama, speaking on behalf of “many folks” and leaving his failed policies out of the equation, said “Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?”

Immediately after asking that question the President answered it himself.  Seems Obama doesn’t like the old America, and the direction he wants to head is “forward” to “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared,” not earned.

Common ownership of personal property is a bold platform to campaign on for a second term, especially for a man who was warned by his wife to stay away from the fried Twinkies at the state fair.

Nonetheless, in Obama’s new America, the government controls profits in much the same way Michelle controls what and how much Barry eats.  Quite simply, the Obama plan is to have the federal government seize property from the prosperous and distribute it as he sees fit, and then after redistributing other people’s wealth, justifying the confiscation of personal property as being necessary to establish fairness and maintain the common good.

According to Obama, anything short of “sharing the wealth” would be moving backward.  Obama said,

“I believe we have to go forward. I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try.”

What American doesn’t believe that “you can make it here if you try?”  Those are certainly old American values. Unless Barack Obama’s idea of “trying” means that any amount of effort suffices, and if you at least try a little but fail to prosper, then a person who’s worked harder and has prospered more will be compelled under government edict to help you “make it.”

Sharing prosperity can only mean that those who have prospered will be forced to relinquish an even greater portion of their good fortune. That is how, in Obama’s “new America,” a better; more equal tomorrow will be furthered for everyone – except hardworking people whose earnings will be forcibly purloined.

But despite his plans to take yet another step closer to “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” from something old into something new, there is still a playful side to President Obama.  At the Iowa state fair, a few days after introducing his “new America” spiel and in lieu of forbidden fried Twinkies, Barack Obama used the occasion to exhibit allegiance to fair-mindedness and equality by mentioning both the “butter cow” and the “chocolate moose.”

Then, after referring to the moo and the moose, a disappointed Obama said he was forbidden by the Secret Service to use the bumper cars, which would have provided the President the perfect vehicle for an Iowa state fair object lesson to illustrate the direction he plans to take in his “new America,” where prosperity — and everything else that happens — is shared.

Barack’s Bankruptcy/Birthday Bash

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

After struggling with noncompliant Republicans over the debt-ceiling debate, in what appears to be an effort to soothe his “agitated” self, President Obama has scheduled a high-priced 50th birthday bash in honor of the day he graced the planet with his greatness.  The news comes just days after Obama was lamenting the burden of having to keep “hundreds of thousands of [unnecessary] dollars in additional income.”  The President encouraged people to take the extra money that would otherwise provide stuffing for the worn-out mattresses Americans haven’t been able to replace in a recession and look for an opportunity to help a brother or sister in need.

Barack’s Birthday Bonanza has been scheduled for August 4th — the day after the United States of America is due to officially downshift from the black into the red. The festivities should be a pleasant albeit bizarre distraction from the weeping and gnashing of teeth taking place outside the walls of the concert hall, if the nation actually defaults.

Either way, the elaborate Chicago event will serve as an all-in-one Obama 2012 campaign fundraiser, concert, and birthday celebration.  The affair comes complete with celebrities, crooning, swooning, and singing praises to the man who just needs more time to usher in the Hope and Change he’s yet to deliver thanks to obstacles like former president G. W. Bush, the intractable Eric Cantor (R-VA), and the perpetually pesky Fox News.

Still, Obama exhorting self-sacrifice one day and then charging to attend a function in his honor the next is where this party thing gets a little dicey.

The entry fee to get into the Aragon Ballroom for Barry’s big day will cost well-heeled couples a large pile of the type of “additional income” Obama just the other day suggested they should give to the needy. Without having to win the “Dinner with Barack and Biden” raffle, donors willing to part with $35,800 get to enjoy a private dinner with the President and VIP seating at a birthday concert rumored to be featuring native Chicagoans.

Spending thousands of dollars worth of “additional income” to see Obama blow out 50 birthday candles isn’t exactly the type of altruistic endeavor the President promoted when he mentioned parents struggling to pay college tuition.  Nevertheless, at least the President is doing a good deed by helping ease the burden he suffers daily of having to keep “additional income” that could be put to better use.

Heaven knows most people can always manage with a little less, and even if they can’t, the President is convinced that most Americans, regardless of their situation, have more than they actually need. In fact, the real reason behind the President hosting a function where he’ll stuff disposable cash into his campaign coffers, contributed by anyone willing to cough it up, is to reaffirm his commitment to training the nation to make do with less.

President Obama is even making sure, regardless of economic strata, that “shared sacrifice” is truly shared.  At the birthday show, there’ll even be a limited-availability $50 “neediest among us” section for those who view the cost of admittance as an investment in an Obama second term, where he’ll have another chance to fulfill his promise to provide free gas and monthly mortgage payments to those still having trouble making ends meet.

General admission will be more costly for the wealthier devotee who would rather splurge on a $200 glimpse of Barack Obama across a crowded ballroom than contribute “additional income” to a family in need of groceries.  For those who don’t consider a party a real party without access to adult beverages, the evening will cost $1000 worth of “additional income” to clink glasses with likeminded people in between rounds of party games, which could include Pin the Tail on the Donkeycrat.

Finally, one semester’s worth of tuition monies that could assist a struggling family with college-age children will purchase birthday celebrants a photo with the guest of honor.  Funny, wasn’t it just yesterday that Obama hammered away at top earners and corporate jet owners who, ironically, are the only ones with the money to plunk down $10,000 for a $5.99 prom-photo-quality souvenir featuring a smiling President with pockets full of evil rich people’s “additional income?”

As Barack Obama tries to decide whether or not to have Jennifer Hudson sing what is fast becoming the perfect Obama Victory Fund 2012 theme song – “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going,” the President’s insolvency/$35K per couple birthday party will provide the perfect milieu to juxtapose against the monetary mayhem wreaking havoc across the nation.

However, there remains one glaring contradiction surrounding the expensive social event, which is that the festivities are being financed with donations gathered from the very people Barack Obama has just criticized for hoarding the “additional income” they need to afford entry into a high-priced shindig like the one he decided to throw for himself.

In the end, the Barack Bankruptcy/Birthday Bash, which will likely feature a 10-tiered “Yes We Can” birthday cake, turns out to be another opportunity for the President to illustrate to the American public he’s dead serious about his refusal to bow to spending cuts, and he’s willing to pull out all the stops to prove it.  In addition, Barack can use the event to clarify his recent comments concerning Americans giving money they don’t need to the needy and explain that the only time charitable “shared sacrifice” gets a pass is if those with extra funds decide to shower those extras on him.

Investing in Venezuela’s Future

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, much like American President Barack Obama, believes in “sharing wealth.” As a means of satisfying “human needs … equally [and] without privilege,” Chávez adheres to “the fundamental goal of socialism.” If a person has what is considered excess, Hugo looks for creative ways to divide and redistribute the possessions of the one fairly among the many.

Hugo’s form of social impartiality assures the nation’s poor that the government is the provider of every earthly need. Venezuela’s government “subsidize[s] food to low-income families, redistribute[s] land and wealth, and pour[s] money from [a] booming oil industry into health and education programs.”

One area where Chávez’s pervasive redistributive efforts have failed is in the provision of shelter for Venezuela’s poor.  The Chávez government has built “fewer than 40,000 units a year – some say only 24,000 – in contrast to previous governments, which averaged 70,000.” Therefore, Venezuela is further along in the housing crisis than countries farther north.

Compounding the problem is the severe flooding that has devastated hillside slums, “displaced thousands of families [and] highlight[ed] the shortage of 2 million or so housing units.” As a result, people looking to the government to provide for every human necessity “have had to erect shacks on top of shacks on precarious slopes.”

What socialist leaders like Hugo Chávez never acknowledge is Marxism’s repeated failure to deliver on big promises. Rather than abandon a failed system, Hugo Chávez turns again to plunder Venezuela’s middle and upper classes with plans to dole out stolen money to people who didn’t earn it.

When it comes to addressing Venezuela’s housing shortage, Chávez chooses to remedy the problem by eliminating the unjust practice of owning a home with unused space. In a failing global economy, Hugo’s fair and equitable fix even has the potential to be implemented, if need be, in high-foreclosure American cities like Detroit and Las Vegas.

The plan includes recruiting the military to ensure the homeless can take up residence in a stranger’s private home, as well as justifying the seizure of property by accusing rich people of hoarding and “leaving idle” all the best land. Also included is a strong dose of class warfare, forced closure of golf courses, and a proposal suggesting that “thousands of poor families could be settled” on the greens of the Caracas Country Club.

Chávez commenced the property-sharing program by stepping up “rural expropriations [by] deploying 1,600 troops at 47 farms…claiming the farms were unproductive.” The Venezuelan government also eyed urban areas to populate with the homeless as a way to reinforce “fading support in the slums, once Chávista heartlands, which [more recently] have voted for opposition mayors and governors.”

In response, and with little prodding from the government, a “wave of squats” dressed in Chávez Socialist Party red tee-shirts “seized 20 spaces in a coordinated strike in the well-off Caracas municipality of Chacao.”

In fact, a five-star hotel in Chacao is presently hosting 60 displaced families. Two women living in the hotel said, “We’re supposed to use the service entrance and not go near the lobby, but we get treated well. Three meals a day, everything free.”  According to the poor residents of the five-star hotel, the experience of Chávez’s most recent effort to redistribute wealth can only be described as wandering in the “desert, and then…[getting to] an oasis.”

Apparently, Hugo has faith to believe aggressive socialist policies can “win the future” by merely forcing Venezuela’s diminishing middle and upper classes to “invest” in Chavez’s bid for re-election by mandating they relinquish personal property and wealth.

Sharing the Shared Wealth

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Baby carrots may have made it into vending machines in Cincinnati and Syracuse, but it doesn’t look like the Salisbury steak and French fries on school menus are going to be swapped for turkey burgers and string beans any time soon.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move (the chicken nuggets off the lunch tray)” campaign “has stalled in Congress after anti-hunger groups and more than 100 Democrats protested the use of food stamp dollars to pay for it.”  Mrs. Obama, together with Congressional leaders, want to improve school lunches and offer low-income students $4.5 billion in feeding programs on the back of the national Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamps).

It’s the newest socialist scheme to “share shared wealth.” Personal opinion of welfare programs aside, one must admit that for the wife of the Maharishi of Entitlement Programs to sanction purposeful deprivation to ensure healthy school lunches for children is perplexing at best.

Statistics show that “90% of black children will be clients of… [SNAP]…at least once by the time they turn 20.” In order for Michelle, disguised as the Department of Agriculture, to have ample funding to dictate fat and sugar content on school menus, needy families must receive fewer food stamps and less food.

Many don’t agree. Well fed/well off Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) received a missive from Democrats calling the plan “egregious.” “It’s just plain wrong,” said Jim McGovern, (D-MA).  McGovern, a longtime advocate for childhood nutrition programs, queried the bill’s sponsors, asking, “[is] dipping into people’s food stamps the way you plan to subsidize child nutrition?”

SNAP annually costs the American taxpayer $56 billion, which is why Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the healthy kid bill and its exorbitant price tag. Question: Can’t food stamp parents pack healthy school lunches with items already purchased with supplemental income?

Despite the opposition, Michelle Obama is a forceful supporter of stalled school lunch legislation.  Apparently the First Lady attempted, through “extensive outreach,” to goad Speaker Pelosi into denying food stamp provisions in order to fund foods eaten at school. What better way to interject government control than by replacing home-based Cocoa Puffs with school-based whole-wheat pretzels?

The healthy school lunch program, the “Let’s Move” campaign, and childhood obesity concerns are all part of the same “Ditch the Doritos®” movement.  However, with simple math, hesitant legislators could be influenced to support the bill. Crunching a few numbers reveals that if food stamp money is used, with minimum effort chubby kids could ultimately benefit.

Recent statistics indicate that 35.1 million people receive food stamps. Food stamps cost $4.68 billion a month.  The price tag for Michelle’s school lunch initiative is $4.5 billion, approximately one month’s worth of SNAP monies. Children require 1600 calories a day, so over 30 days that’s 48,000 calories.  It takes a 3,500-calorie deficit to lose a pound, so if one month’s worth of calories are eliminated, every SNAP youngster stands to lose 13.7 pounds. Thus, if the lost calories are not replaced elsewhere, in due course, Michelle Obama would have singlehandedly tackled childhood obesity by simply wresting a “piece of welfare pie” from the mouths of corpulent children.

If Michelle can successfully synchronize cutting SNAP calories, slashing salt, sugar and saturated fat from school lunches, and getting “Let’s Move” workouts implemented in America’s schoolyards, her efforts could justify denying $4.5 billion in funding to impoverished children.

Either way, the suggestion that food stamp money be used to fund healthy school lunches for low-income children signals a new low for the government, where even entitlements are now being considered “spreadable wealth.”

The Halves and the Halve-Nots


When you were a kid the kindest thing you could say to a friend over lunch was, “You want half?” Giving half of what we have is no longer a matter of free choice.  About 50% of every penny we earn goes toward taxes.  Americans who do pay taxes, if lucky, live in a world merely of halves, because those less fortunate or about  10% of the highest earners, pay 72% of the tax burden…just to be fair!

In order to exhibit corporate compassion the government takes the lead by extending altruism toward those we wouldn’t willingly share half our peanut butter and jelly sandwich with if given the choice.  What the government has done is raid our lunch box, stealing  ½ our PBJ and leaving Americans  nothing extra if we desire to share with someone of our own choosing.  Moreover, we are left with little to fill our own bellies if we happen to want to keep the whole peanut butter sandwich to ourselves.

Presently about 50% of the nation does not pay taxes, which means those who do must contribute 50% to compensate for the lunch-less leeches that come to school everyday expecting to get fed for free.

Think of it this way, you go to MacDonald’s  buy a hamburger, fries and a large Coke.   You’re minding your business eating your lunch and along comes Uncle Sam.  While you sit there in total shock,  he grabs and scarfs down ½ the cheese burger, grabs a large greasy handful of ½ the fries and glugs down a refreshing portion of Coke, smiles, wipes his mouth and pats his belly saying, “Thanks for being patriotic” before walking on.

The question is why stop with income tax and Big Mac’s?  Wouldn’t it stand to reason that anyone having two of anything has one “two” many?   The government, who views itself as the proprietor of equitable fairness, should not hesitate to pass legislation allowing confiscation of half of everything we have.   In doing so, government can enforce an even playing field between the halves and the halve-nots.

For instance, do we really need two kidneys?  How can that be fair if there are people who need just one?  Some people believe we have two kidneys so we can save lives…so what are we waiting for?  Government should mandate the extraction of one kidney from every US citizen; it’s the only moral thing to do.

How many parts can one liver be cut into and spread around?  Shouldn’t we be  “spreading the liver wealth.”  Livers grow back to their original size in two to six weeks so the procedure can be done repeatedly making sure liver fairness prevails.  Donating ½ a lung is somewhat risky, but can be perfected with practice.

If  blind in one eye, you can make short work of seeing  normally out of one eye…so do we really “need” two?   As far as donating teeth, just think of the 32 ways to show you care.  Obama’s potential to institute an Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel directed  Mengle Molar Extraction Program or an innovative No Need for Thirty-two to Chew initiative  holds forth hope to the tooth disadvantaged everywhere.

Medical science is on the cusp of ovary transplants for the infertile, in fairness and effort to avoid gender specific statements, “Cough up an ovary girlfriend there are people, both male and female, in need of what you have two of.”  Speaking of coughing, although testicle transplant is still in the experimental stage, Obama pledges hope for the gonad deprived in the future with, “The Chastity Bono One Ball is Better than None” legislation.  New meaning can be given to breast implants when government outlaws  silicone and mandates only real, living and breathing mammary glands for transplant!

Houses with extra rooms are the epitome of unfair.   Extra bathrooms and bedrooms should not be allowed when there is room on the premises to house illegal aliens!   Not only should illegal’s, in an effort to extend the hand of welcome, be allowed to circumvent the law while partaking of  free, unlimited health care, which according to Obama is a “basic standard of decency.“  Anyone sneaking over the border illegally, though already absolved of paying taxes, would additionally  benefit from a carefully crafted Illegal Alien Squatter’s Equality  Bill, granting unfettered access to the extra rooms in all our homes.

Most would agree that although it would take practice and strength we could learn to walk without all our toes, five on each foot seems extravagant.  For those who choose to drive all HOV (High Occupancy Vehicles) signage should be removed from highways and expressways, reworded to say Help Out Victim-Vehicles and distributed where ever driving is allowed.  Anyone pulled over motoring along in a car with room for additional passengers should be fined and forced from that day forward to drive government designated victims where ever they want to go.

An official Barack Obama Fifty Percent Fairness rule should be instituted and applied to every and all areas of our lives as Americans.  Barack Obama has taught us that ½ of everything is a moral standard that should become the new American creed.  Half of what you earn is yours, half your property must be shared and half of your body should be divvied up to provide spare parts for those without.

So, the next time you’re standing in Dunkin Donuts about to take a sip out of your, extra large, well deserved Frozen Cappuccino and some smelly homeless person, with no teeth grabs it from your hand and slurps down half the frothy treat, don’t resist, close your eyes and whisper to yourself, “Yes We Can, Yes We Can.”

Call to mind the hope and change our nation committed to on November 4th, 2008 and pray to God the deserving derelict leaves half the cappuccino for you and doesn’t notice that you still have all your teeth — because according to moral arbitrator Barack Obama, while they remain in your mouth, you have one more bicuspid than you actually need.

%d bloggers like this: