« Right on the Button | Main | Symbolism that's more than symbolic »


What Obama means by "change"

Spectre emailed me today:

Redistribution is not equality. The concept of redistribution necessitates first the seizure of the subject of the redistribution by the state and second the reapportionment of that subject as the state deems fit. In effect, taking property or rights belonging to one group to grant to another at the whim of those in charge of the effort.

And when you redistribute resources, you block the creation of new resources.

The Constitution recognizes that all are created as equals, and possess inalienable rights such as life liberty and the right to pursue a way of life that brings them happiness. The duty of government is thus to insure a level playing field that allows all to pursue their dreams without government interference.

By Obama’s own admission, the Constitution remains an impediment to his dream. The Constitution, in Obama’s own words is fundamentally flawed: "I think we can say that the constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the Framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this county that continues to this day."

Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”. That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Government was structured so as not to limit the rights of the people, but to protect them.

Again, the mere hint of “redistribution” necessitates taking from one to give to another. It goes well beyond the bounds of simple socialism, and treads firmly in the territory of communism. “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs”. (Karl Marx)

There is no question that Obama’s remarks were in the context of advocating socialism. To lament the failure of the judicial system in not being the vehicle to effect wealth redistribution coupled with identifying the “failures” of the Constitution in this regard reveals a candidate that blows past socialism. Obama is advocating unabashed Marxism.

There is a contemporary example of wealth redistribution we can all take a look at. Zimbabwe. The seizure of property owned by “white” citizens transferred to the “black” majority has, in 8 years, led to an inflation rate of over 1 trillion percent. The system of redistribution is, in and of itself, inherently corrupt. It breeds corruption. Zimbabwe has gone form one of the most stable economies in the world with the title “the breadbasket of Africa” to a ruined country dependent on UN food aid.

Redistribution dictates the elimination of civil liberties – no more property rights. It turns the Constitution on its head; it shreds it to pieces. Rather than limiting government power, redistribution empowers government. The government no longer is an entity of the people, by the people or for the people – government becomes the omnipotent purveyor of all. Citizens become subjects of the government and exist for the benefit of the government. Independence becomes dependence. The government no longer serves the people; the people now serve the government.

So how will a President Obama pursue that agenda?

First, he will defund the military:

Second, he will create a civilian security force, “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military forces:

With a weakened and stretched military stretched across the globe, Obama’s Civilian Security Force will be free to enforce his priorities here, in the name of “security”.

Our country is at a critical crossroads. And we will be deciding our future fate on Tuesday. Our forefathers also faced momentus issues during their lifetimes. It was their principled stand, their unwillingness to negotiate away their basic human rights, that gave birth to this great nation. We will decide whether we too are men and women of principle, men and women who choose not to waver in the face of distressing times or peril, men and women who believe freedom is not negotiable.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." (Benjamin Franklin)

Stand by your principles. And remember the sacrifice of all those who have gone before you — the men and women who were willing to give all for the freedoms we enjoy in our United States.

God bless you, Spectre. God bless us all.

Posted by Rodger on November 2, 2008 at 09:23 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What Obama means by "change":


The comments to this entry are closed.