Sometimes it's just the "socialism"...

I'm always amazed at the ability of people to twist and distort an obvious fact in the political arena.

Rep. John Lewis gave us an excellent example this week, by comparing the McCain campaign with George Wallace (in other words, calling them racists) of Alabama for calling Barack Obama a socialist.

Now, I happen to be old enough to remember George Wallace. He was truly a racist. What does that have to do with McCain or with calling Obama a socialist. Well, Lewis - and the leftist journalists who pounced on the story - claimed that it's an old habit in the South call blacks socialists when they really mean race.

Really.

The problem is this, that when we call Obama a socialist - and I have - what we really mean is that he is a socialist. Specifically, that his main goal for public service has long been redistribution of income - the classic main tenet of socialism. He associates himself with people and groups that have as their goal the overthrow of American capitalism. That's what we mean by socialist.

You don't have to take my word for it. Take Obama's. When confronted by a serious challenger at a campaign stop this week who was taking Obama to task for his tax plans, Obama said that he just feels that "when you spread the wealth around" everyone is better off.

Where again does it say in the U.S. Constitution that one of the President's jobs is to "spread the wealth around"?

Oh, sort of like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Barack Hussein Marx.

Sometimes a "socialist" is just a socialist.