Trickle Up Poverty by Michael Savage Page B

crate and fastened it to the front end of the board. We nailed two handles on top of the orange crate.
    Presto! I had an instant scooter.
    Some kids would build a go-cart out of wood using the wheels from a baby carriage. They were inventive and, while these toys weren’t necessarily beautiful in the traditional sense of the word, we loved them because we had made them ourselves. The point of the story is that I come from a time in America when kids made toys because they didn’t have the money to buy them. They made them out of scraps of wood, nails, a hammer, and sweat. What a different time it was.
    If we wanted something but couldn’t afford it, we knew we had to make it ourselves, work to buy it, or learn to do without it. Which is why I have serious problems with Barack Obama’s entitlement and redistributing of wealth scheme. I don’t care what Marx the Slacker preached. No man, woman, or child is entitled to benefit from the fruit of another man’s labor—unless that worker decides to be charitable.
    Why do naked Marxist-Leninist politicians like Obama ostensibly take from the middle class to give to the rich and poor? Because they understand the power of a well-placed handout to buy off the people and to further their real socialist agenda—a cycle of dependency on the government from cradle to grave and to diminish the “bourgeoisie,” the middle class. Make no mistake. This Marxist-Leninist president is converting America into a socialist nation step by step, the same way Mao Zedong did it on the Long March in China.
    I’ve said this president is a revolutionary socialist.
    I’ve said he’s a naked Marxist-Leninist.
    I’ve said these things because I know what I’m talking about.
    My interest in this topic of Marxism, Leninism, and socialism goes back to my own heritage. I am the son of an immigrant. My grandfather fled Communism, Marxism, and the Red Revolution. He came to New York right after 1917 to find a new life for himself in a free society. Thanks to him, I was steeped in anti-communist philosophy from the earliest age. I was taught to cherish the freedom of the American experience. I was told how sacred and fragile liberty is and how I should always work to protect it.
    Taking advantage of his newfound freedom, my grandfather opened a little tailor shop of his own and was proud of the suits he designed and made for his customers. He died young of a heart attack because he worked with a passion seven days a week. Naturally, I wanted to know why this man traveled thousands of miles away from his home, family, and friends to start over here in America. Which is why I’ve studied Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot—all of them, since I was eighteen years old.
    I didn’t read them because I worshipped them or saw them as possessing the answer. I studied them because I was a college student who didn’t want to repeat the mistakes of history. It’s not as though I just started reading this stuff yesterday so I could be on Fox News with a blackboard lecturing everyone. I’ve studied revolutions for over forty years. I know what’s going on with this president and Americans would, too, if they had not been inculcated with socialism in America’s public schools.
    That said, a few questions are in order.
    Do the Tea Party movement and the middle class have any basis to be suspicious that President Obama’s true agenda is to spearhead a socialist revolution? Or, are these fears nothing more than unfounded rumors raised by rabble-rousers? Is Barack Obama operating within the grand traditions of America? Or, is he philosophically aligned with the traditions of the European socialist theories of Marxism-Leninism, as many suspect? Is Obama simply an idealist and not an ideologue? Or is he a “Manchurian candidate”?
    I think we have to approach these questions almost clinically.
    Before we get started, I must warn you of something. I have no gray zone when it comes to this topic of