September 26, 2012

Before entering the voting booth on November 6th, ask yourself the question, would Karl Marx like Barack Obama's redistributionist philosophy? Keep in mind that I am not talking about just "spreading the wealth around." How about the redistribution of power - internationally?

Consider the recently uncovered tape of Obama addressing students at Loyola University in 1998. When this became available it produced an uproar.  In the tape, Obama expressed his admiration for redistributive government programs:

I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot.  How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities?

If he is elected, Obama's 1998 proposition will be reality in the next four years.

When he proposed to redistribute wealth, Ibama meant that the system has to find a "trick" way to transform your wealth into government's hands.  Government will then distribute that wealth to others of its choosing.

Your work and your wealth will belong to the government "in the name of society"; in other words, it will belong to the collective.  Actually, though, your work and your wealth will belong to the elite of the government, who will decide who and what is given your money.  This is what "redistribution of wealth" means in Obama's philosophy; it is also the basic principle of communism.

The meaning of the "redistribution" of wealth is official government stealing and the end of your freedom.  It is the beginning of your forced sacrifices for your leader, your government, and your society.  This leads to a permanent realignment of power in society, as has been seen in Europe, or the rise of a dictator, as has been seen frequently in communist society.

For almost half of my life, I lived in communist Romania.  I lived the other half in the free land, America.  Believe me -- I know what Obama is talking about and advocating for America.

Obama's America is a communist society.  As history shows, he will bring about this way of life by the following means:

1. Transforming private property into collective property. 

The right to individual private ownership of property is sacred in America.  American society is based on a person's right to the fruit of his labors, not to mention his ancestors' labors.  The government has no right to take these away. 

Under redistribution of wealth philosophy imposed by government -- and of the communist system - you have no personal right to your work, property, or inheritance.

2. Destroying the initiative and creativity of people.

America's wealth and prosperity were created by individuals with the great desire and creativity encouraged by a free society.  Many Americans started at a lower income and with no prior wealth.  Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, among others, started with essentially nothing and built huge enterprises.

Creativity and working hard were emphasized by many successful Americans during their lives and after their deaths.  Andrew Carnegie, for example, felt so strongly that each generation should make its own way that he left the bulk of his estate to charity.

The successes and consequent contributions of these "wealthy" people create growth and opportunities for other Americans, resulting in more success and wealth for America as a whole.  But eliminating from society individual power and desire curtails and squashes the drive for success.

A government does not create wealth.  It is the private sector, where new businesses are started and flourish, that allows opportunity and wealth to expand.  The private sector is responsible for economic growth.

As America's successful become wealthy, they are able to give more and support others, be it through research projects, schools, or the arts.  Throughout history, it has been the wealthy who have commissioned fine art, musical compositions, museums, and other monuments of civilization.

3. Increasing the poverty of all who depend on government for basic needs.

Government redistribution will not help the poor.  History has shown that redistribution of wealth makes all poor. 

In communist societies like China, Russia, Romania, etc., there was and there is no equality of classes.  Rather, there exist millions of poor people under a small, elite group of communist rich who never care about helping poor people.

History shows example after example of communist systems that have collapsed, each of which made promises like equality and justice and failed to deliver.  But each of these collapses took millions of lives and many generations, as people discovered the lies and finally fought the system only at length.

American society is well-known for its compassion for and charity to the poor.  Many programs, both private and public, are in place to help those seeking to overcome poverty.  Yes, many in society believe we should be doing even more.  But one must remember that poor people are part of our society who need to be helped, but not enabled. 

We must not be stopped by the pressure of political correctness to acknowledge that many people have greater abilities than others -- artistic or musical skills, abilities in mathematics or science, in leadership, in business, and so forth.  Therefore, as people are different in abilities and effort, fairness of reward requires such differences.  This is in fact the true "fair shake" we hear so much about today in politics.

Make no mistake: this November election starkly concerns what we want our future as a country to be.  We have to decide if we want to elect a president who will bring us back to the American values of free market and free opportunities to pursue the American dream, or if we want to elect a president who will take us into socialism and communism -- in other words, the end of our freedom, where government controls, dictates to, and owns us.

Synidcated columnist Thomas Sowell recently pointed out that what many regard as a failure of Obama's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, may well be one of his biggest successes. His desire to redistribute wealth domestically is part of a larger ideological vision that includes a redistribution of power internationally.

Obama has long said that the United States plays too large a role internationally. His policies suggest that Islamic countries need a larger role.

Redistribution of wealth means not equality, fairness, or justice, but rather poverty, slavery, and a complete lack of freedom. Redistribution of power means empowering our enemies on all sides with the equal ability to wipe the U.S. out of existence.

Freedom is precious to those who don't have it.  Will free American people choose to be enslaved?  I hope not.  Do those Americans who think "redistribution of wealth" is wonderful and will make their lives easier really understand its world history and true consequences?  That remains to be seen.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.