Archive - Oct 27, 2008
Hold onto your granny panties, my devoted Cake Eater readers, here's yet another piece of information about Barack Obama that the mainstream media won't report, and if they do, they'll let the lefties spin it to a favorable position.
Check it out.
Go ahead and press play. It's only four minutes long, and it's worth your while to see what kind of flaming leftist Obama really is.
1. The Supreme Court never considered "redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice" among the guarantees provided to citizens.
2. Even the Warren Court was not "radical" enough to do so -- to impose real change on the nation.
3. The courts have generally provided negative constraints on the government rather than positive obligations the government owes to its citizens (specifically, here, such as economic justice and redistribution of wealth).
4. Therefore, it is a "tragedy" that the civil rights movement became so courts-focused, because it limited what redress they could actually obtain -- and it took attention away from the "community organizing" efforts which could assemble "coalitions of power" (political power, that is) to actually achieve "redistributive change." Such change simply could not be had in the courts, still laboring under the "constraints" imposed by the Founding Fathers.
5. "And in some ways we still suffer from that."
That is disturbing.
No matter what kind of spin his lackeys are putting on this, the truth of the matter is that Obama thinks that the courts aren't a great place to get economic justice---but that it's ok to do it legislatively.
Which, considering we, the American people, have pretty much rejected socialism in the past on a wholesale level, is disturbing. That's what he's about. That's what he's talking about with his wealth redistribution; it's class warfare on a Marxist level. If given the chance, he will do precisely what Marx wanted. This is the same plan that didn't work in the Soviet Union. This is the same plan that didn't work in Vietnam. This is the same plan that didn't work in China. The latter two having switched over to a state-enforced capitalism. I could go on with the examples, but you get the gist, I'm sure. Why didn't it work? you ask. Because people are inherently unable to discard their sense of self-preservation to work for what is considered the "greater good" when that greater good leaves them worse off. In other words, people will always want theirs, "theirs" will be better than what they currently have, and they'll do what they need to get it. It's hardwired. How can an ideal overtake your hardwired sense of self-preservation? It can't. Unless that ideal works with the hardwiring---i.e.capitalism. This is why communism failed.
No, you will not find this explanation (at least I'm fairly sure you won't) in any research. I don't have the data to back up my assertions. This is simply my observation---and has been since I was a senior in high school. The Soviet Union not only fell because they could no longer keep up with America's nuclear spending (Way to go, Ronnie!) but it also failed because the people had lost sight of what the ideals of communism were supposed to be: everyone prospering by hard work, that success could be egalitarian, and the state could make it so. The comforts of the burgeois life were to be abandoned. No one was to have them. Everyone was equal. Everybody was a "comrade." Everyone would have food on the table in their hovel and would go to sleep each night, thinking righteous red thoughts about the power of the worker within the state that respected them. Well, that's not exactly how it worked out. Some people in the Soviet Union prospered more than others, and they were generally high-up party members, who had sleazed their way up to the top, for more and better perks. These people were corrupt, but they were at least honest: they knew how the system worked, they knew what they needed and they went out and got it for themselves. Unfortunately, that left the poor, idealistic, potato-picking sap to foot the bill.
Oh, and never mind the repressive measures the Soviet Union had to put in place to keep the people from rebelling. Their very own revolution came back to bite them on the ass. That is, only if they didn't end up building the Road of Bones in Siberia.
Is this what we want for America? Do you really want Joe Biden riding around D.C. in his limo, asking neighboring cars to roll down their windows, and asking them if they have any Grey Poupon, while the "workers" toil for a bread and soup? Because that's what you'll get if you elect this Marxist asshole.
Ok, perhaps that's an overstatement. While I doubt either you or I will be sent out to pick potatoes in the fields, this is what Barack Obama is about. This is what he wants: wealth redistribution. A key tenet of Marxism is wealth redistribution.. Marxism morphed into communism. Communism has been tried and has failed, time and again. Capitalism, however unfair, actually does work. Communism means that you don't own anything, and if you did, well it was siezed by the state and will be given to other people. Obama's clever enough to realize that some people remember the cold war and the evils of communism, the wholesale repression of the people under its boot. He just wants to take money from those who have enough and give it to those who don't, thus making everyone middle-class. Said money will be redistributed through tax refunds, welfare payments, universal healthcare, etc. This is what he wants. Oh, sure it sounds good: take from the rich and give to everyone else! Fabulous! Where do I sign up to get my own pair of Manolo Blahniks? But, here's the catch---and there's always a catch---what happens when you don't have rich people any longer? Because communism doesn't encourage rich people to do what they do what they do best, which is to create wealth. There's no purpose to it when it will only be confiscated by the state. Who foots the bill then? Whose wealth will be resdistributed then, my devoted Cake Eater readers? Why, it will be the only wealth available to the ruling class---yours. Those massive social programs don't fund themselves, do they?
Obama wants economic justice, which really means that the state will have the power to run your life. Is that what you want? Choice will no longer be an option, except when it comes to abortions, that is. Is your health insurance premium so much that you're willing to give up the essential freedom of choice? Did you lose so much in the stock market over the past couple of weeks that you feel the best solution is what government can give you? Are you willing to trade your integrity and your dignity as an independent, free person to feel the warmth and security of the nanny state's blanket?
This man is not only a nasty, slimy piece of work, he's a thief. He fancies himself as Robin Hood: he steals from the rich to give to the poor. The only problem with that analogy (as someone has already pointed out, but forgive me, I can't remember who it is) is that Robin Hood was stealing from the Sherriff of Nottingham, who had imposed huge taxes upon the people of Sherwood Forest to pay for his battle against King Richard, and his wine bill, to the point where the people were starving. Robin Hood was taking money that rightfully belonged to the people and giving it back to them. This is who Barack Obama claims to be. He'll take from the rich and give it to you. But the thing is---this being the difference between Robin Hood and Barack Obama---that money was never yours to begin with. Someone worked hard for that money. They---straight from the diaphragm of John Houseman---earned it. That's the difference. It goes from being your money to being their money simply because they're in charge of the government. If they're willing to do it to their biggest donors, why wouldn't the Democrats do it to you? What's going to stop them?
Have some pride, for fuckssakes, people, and say definitively that a. you'd like to be rich, too and b. the government had better not take it when I get to that point. Sure, it's harder to commit to than taking a hand-out, but have you no shame? This country was not founded, and built to what it is today, by weenies who looked to the government to solve every problem they had. They worked for it. They made their lives better with their own two hands. Perhaps you've got someone in your family tree who made a success of themselves? What would they think if you were to tell them you're voting for the guy who's going to redistribute the wealth from the rich and give it to people who already have roofs over their heads and food on the table? They'd be, rightly, infuriated with you, methinks. They would consider taking handouts as shameful. They would rather starve, undoubtedly, than take charity where none is needed. They would understand that you NEVER beg unless you absolutely need to.
People right now do not need to beg.
They are comfortable. Their 401K took a hit, but it'll rebuild its value in a few years. Their home might have less value, but it should never have had that value in the first place because of an overinflated market. Yet, a small, temporary, decrease in their individual prosperity---which is just another example of the law of self-preservation---is going to lead them to vote for the guy who's going to give them a handout? Even though they'll undoubtedly regret that handout later? Yep. That's what it appears they're going to.
People are getting stupider every year. I swear.
