Marxist
Posted on 10/27/2008 11:16:36 AM PDT by jessduntno
Obama: redistribution of wealth is economic justice
Barack Obama during a radio interview in 2001 said some rather troubling things. He posited that the civil rights movement, while successfully establishing social rights for all, did not pursue “economic justice” and “redistributive change." While said in the context of talking about the segregation movement, he was explicit in noting that the civil rights movement had not gone far enough in terms of providing equal rights for all. In his view racial integration was the first step towards equality in terms of providing racial equality, but true equality will only come with the economic equality of all, beyond the race issue. [Read the text of the interview here].
We’ve already heard Obama tell Joe the Plumber that its better for everyone when you spread the wealth around, so this is not a radical bombshell, but it does reinforce an important point: when Obama becomes President, capitalists must be vigilant in the fight against socialist trends.
Obama was specifically quoted as saying it was a “tragedy” that “the Supreme court didn’t pursue redistribution of wealth” during the time of the civil rights movement. Beyond the obvious economic theory posited there, it also shows this former law professor’s bias about progressive judicial activism instead of constitutional activism.
He further established his position on strict constructionism or originalism (the conservative legal philosophy that limits and restricts judicial interpretation) versus living constitution theory (the progressive legal philosophy viewing the constitution as an evolving document pegged to societal trends) when he said this:
“[The Warren Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints put in by the founding fathers in the Constitution…I’m not optimistic about redistributive change through the courts.”
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.org ...
Lets play a quick game, which of the following three statements was made by Karl Marx:
“We need to spread the wealth around” “Redistribution of wealth is economic justice” “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
And the answer is—all of them, at least as a paraphrase. Marx specifically believed that the means of production should be distributed to all, and the profit from production belonged to the laborers, not the owner who made it all possible. And at least the first two are almost direct quotes from Obama. That's guilt by association that makes the Ayers controversy look even sillier than it already is.
A short version on You Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
The original show is from the January 18, 2001 Chicago Public Radio show Odyssey. Their audio archive is here:
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp
The 52min audio of the entire show is here:
http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010118.ram
So is America going to elect a communist? The DNC is the Democratic National Communist Party, right? What’s the effective difference between Obamastan and FDR?
His statements square with liberation theology.
Someone please ask this clown if he EVER read a history book and if he can define Communism.
Then ask him if he can please show us the Communist country which is thriving and where the citizens are happy and fulfilled individuals.
When did economic well being become a constitutional right? Redistribution of wealth is nothing more than government sanctioned theft.
There is no ‘justice’. There’s ‘just us’ .
All struggles are class struggles. -- Karl Marx
NH - Live Free or Die
Sununu should crush Shaheen with this.
Dole, Chambliss, and McConnell too.
People do not want to hear that they have to give their money to someone else who didn’t earn it. It’s their money, not Obama’s, not the government’s.
If Republicans cannot win thus argument, we’re in worse shape than I thought.
Private Property Rights
Tired of having the fruits of their labors confiscated by an overpowering British government, America's Founders declared themselves free and independent.
Most American schoolchildren can recite their claim that ". all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Less familiar, however, are these lines from their Declaration of Independence:
"He ( King George III ) has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance .... He has combined with others to subject us, ... imposing taxes on us without our consent."
What, then, did the Founders consider to be the real cornerstone of man's liberty and happiness? On what basic premise did they devise their Constitution? Let them speak for themselves:
| John Adams |
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST"
|
| James Madison |
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." |
Their guiding principle was that people come together to form governments in order to SECURE their rights to property - not to create an entity which will, itself, "take from the mouths of labor the bread it has earned." What was wrong for individual citizens to do to one another, they believed, was equally wrong for government to do to them.
The right to own property and to keep the rewards of individual labor opened the floodgates of progress for the benefit of the entire human race. Millions have fled other countries to participate in the Miracle of America.
|
|
Attention “vigilant Capitalists”, research William Ayers’s final solution for us.
Wow. Good side-by-side.
The market is already reflecting the possibility of an Obama Presidency. The stock market plunge is due mostly to investors considering the potential for future earnings under the rule of a socialist government. If the commie actually gets elected (no thanks to voter fraud and ACORN), watch capitalists pull a great deal of their wealth out of our economy. Things will really crash then.
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Is this the ‘Moment’? Do people really want to give up their liberties?
“Economic justice” is legalized theft. How do you best protect yourself against a thief when the robber is your own government?
* Command economy instead of free-market economy.
* Government coercion instead of God-given inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.
* Communist Socialism instead of Constitutional Republic.
* Poverty instead of opportunity and prosperity.
America wake up!
Hey Democrats....”Ask NOT what your Neighbors can do for you, ask what YOU can do for YOURSELF”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.