Obama's Definition of "Change".. Does It Begin With Marxism? [Blue Pills with Kool-Aid]

10/27/2008 02:14:00 PM

(0) Comments

2677512385_45e749890c_o Lets see here.. the red pill or the blue pill?  And should it be grape Kool-Aid to wash it down?  And who will give it to me?  Obama and his "change" or Biden and ACORN?


Is Marxism the "change" that Obama is speaking of, advancing Marxism so that we are a socialist society?  And when reading this post, please remember keep in the back of your mind countries histories of China, Cuba, East Germany, North Korea, U.S.S.R, and Vietnam.

Recently Obama made a remark to Joe Wurzelbacker aka "Joe the Plumber" in Ohio that "when you spread the wealth around it's a good thing for everybody." 

Over the weekend in Denver Obama stated "I ask you to believe.  Believe in yourselves, belive in each other; believe in the future we can build together because together we can't fail."  "We cannot let up and I know you will not because you want to change America."

Recently in Ohio Obama called his presidential candidacy, "As I've said from the day we began this journey all those months ago, the change we need isn't just about new programs and policies.  It's about a new attitude.  It's about a new politics - a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts:  one that reminds us of the obligations we have to ourselves and one another." "In one week, at this defining moment in history, you can give this country the change we need." "I ask you to believe -- not just in my ability to bring about change, but in yours."  Obama concluded that speech in Ohio with "In one week, we can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo."

So what's the deal with the "us", "we", and "change" thang?


On January 18, 2001 [full audio], then Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama participated in a panel discussion on civil rights and constitutional laws on Chicago public radio station WBEZ.  The discussion deals with Supreme Court intervention in legislative acts.  Obama had some interesting things to say about the court and redistribution of wealth.  Now before listening to the excerpt which includes Obama, let me remind you of the oath of office for the President.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Below is the audio excerpt of Obama's statements, and please pay close attention to his tone. 

MODERATOR:  Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we're joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA:  If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest

formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.  So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.  And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical.  It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.  It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but to doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.  And that hasn't shifted.  One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR:  Let's talk with Karen.  Good morning Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN:  Hi.  The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn't terribly radical with economic changes.  My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place - the court - or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA:  Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing major redistributive change through the courts.  The institution just isn't structured that way. [i.e. not thorough the courts, it would be legislation]

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to a local school district.  The court was very uncomfortable with it.  It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out.  You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court's just not very good at it and politically it's very hard to legitimize options from the court in that regard.  So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally.  Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.



In the statement that is bolded above, I guess our forefathers and all presidents and all government officials for the past ohh what... 200+ years have ignored the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and Obama is going to "change" that?  So 200+ years later, Obama says that things regarding wealth need to "change" according to his personal ethics, morals and values?  Isn't changing our Constitution changing our society from a Democratic one to one of another type?

There is a huge difference between wealth distribution and wealth via distribution.  Obama seems to be advocating via distribution.  This requires seizing money from one group and handing it to another by an act of the government, according to Obama's statement in bold.  Redistribution to Obama means reparations, in other words, those, who he feels has been wronged according to his own personal morals, values and ethics and currently, Obama believes that the working-class has been wronged by business owners and managers.   (Which in reality, is true).  And Obama seems to want to take the next step in our society according to Marxism, which is his way of "fixing" things.


Marxist philosophy is based on changes.  With Marxism, a class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production.  In a Capitalistic economy according to Marxism, economic crisis forces many people to live in poverty, and this downturn eventually causes working-class people to revolt against the owners of factories and businesses.  According to Marxism, the working-class people take control of factories and businesses, then create a new society based on economic equality and cooperation instead of competition.  In other words, a socialist revolution must occur, where the  state is a dictatorship of the proletariat (the working class).  In other words, Marxism is about a final struggle, a judgement against capitalism, which purifies the economy by revolt via identifying the working class as the good guys, and business owners, leaders and manager as the bad guys.

Also within Marxism, is the believe that the media and literary content controls what one person knows.  And if you don't tell people the truth and choose to use "selective truth", and the information comes from "official sources", then society believes it to be true.

This is the very VERY basic definition of Marxism, as best as I understand it, however a point to note is the following.  In Marx's theory of history, materialism is defined by the material conditions at any given time, meaning the relationship which people enter into with one another in order to fulfill basic needs.  These are identified in five stages according to Marxism.

  1. Primitive Communism:  as seen in cooperative tribal societies.  (PAST)
  2. Slave Society:  which develops when the tribe becomes a city-state.  Aristocracy is born.  (PAST)
  3. Feudalism:  aristocracy is the ruling class.  Merchants develop into capitalists.   (PAST)
  4. Capitalism:  capitalists (or the business owners and managers) are the ruling class, who create and employ the true working class.  (CURRENT)
  5. Socialism:  workers gain "consciousness", overthrown the capitalists and take control of the "state".  (OBAMA'S FUTURE PLAN)
  6. Communism:  a classless and stateless society.  (What occurs as a natural event of socialism according to Marx)

Communism evolves from socialism out of this progression:  the socialist slogan is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."  The communist slogan varies thusly:  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." 

Additionally Marxist views of religion was that the lower social class, or proletariat, universal in character and suffering, provides the need for religion not faith.  In fact, Carl Marx rejected the notion that there was a God...............


In case you haven't been paying attention, Joe Biden was interviewed via satellite by WFTV's Barbara West.

West wondered about Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth.  She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with the "spreading the wealth" comment.

"Are you joking?" said Biden.

West later asked Biden about his comments that Obama could be tested early on as president.  She wondered if Biden was saying America's days as the world's leading power are over.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden shot back.

Biden also stated that Obama as a past organizer for ACORN was "100 percent false."  (Oh REALLY.....huh.. I guess selective truth and a personal definition of words is the new norm?  And attempting to change the facts via semantics is the new way, eh?)

Obama's campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden after Joe's stating: 

The campaign cited "an unprofessional interview" and "This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, a Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

In a statement Friday afternoon, Adrianne Marsh, Florida spokeswoman for Obama's campaign, said the station, in talking with Sen. Biden, was "both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts."

Okay so... I guess if you ask the wrong questions and don't include some "fluffing" you are "alienated" and "disappear".  So much for the 1st Amendment.   Hmm.... I guess answering questions about policy are now not politically correct under Obama's camp?  I guess one day under Obamas rule  that I will have to be "informed" or maybe re-educated "about simple facts" because I don't "think" like he does, because  I'm an older generation and the younger generation has more accurate historical fact that include political correctness with selective truth.  (Ever read George Orwell's 1984?)  I guess I'm just a bad old woman........

Oh and if you think I'm alone in all of this, take a look at Michelle Malkin's blog on the Joe Biden interview, which includes linkbacks to her article.

Or take a look at Delmarva Media Group's post "It's time to panic over the 'change' Obama promises."

It is time to panic.  The news media, which is supposed to be the watchdog of our freedom and rights, has taken sides in the presidential race and is intentionally influencing the outcome.

The economy is in ruins thanks to the giveaway policies of the Democratic Party.  The American Civil Liberties Union may soon be rewriting the Constitution, with the aid of Barack Obama's terrorist pal, Bill Ayers.  The country will be attacked in the first six months of an Obama presidency -- according to Obama's runnign mate Joe B iden. The IRS will be converted into a national welfare system.

But the good news is redistributing the wealth is the patriotic thing to do (again, according to Biden).  You can loathe America, as Obama's pastor of 20 years does; you can bomb America, as Obama's political supporter and colleague Ayers did; but as long as you hate Wal-Mart, you are a patriot.



The following countries had governments at some point in the 20th century who at least nominally adhered to Marxism:  Albania (The Communist Party created in 1941-1998), Afghanistan (Civil War from the late 1970s to present, with a 2001 U.S. led invasion against the Taliban government), Angola, Benin, Bulgaria, Chile, China (Mao Zedong, People's Republic of China 1949-present), Republic of Congo, Cuba (Fidel Castro, 195(6)(9)-2006, Castro remains the First Secretary of the Communist Party today.), Czechoslovakia, East Germany (GDR 1949-1990 before "The Wall" came down), Ethiopia, Grenada, Hungary, Laos, Moldova, Mongolia, Monzambique, Nepal, Nicaragua (Sandinistas), North Korea (DPRK, a single-party state, a "workers parties" nominate all candidates for office, and hold all seat in the government), Poland, Romania, Russia, the USSR (Bolshevik, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Joseph Stalin & the Iron Curtain, 1922-1991), South Yemen, Yugoslavia, Venezuela and Vietnam (The Socialist Republic of Vietnam).  How many of these countries have had or are still in a civil war state?  How many of these countries are economically sound?  How many freedoms are lost in these countries under Marxism,  Socialism or Communism? 

I want to see Obama talk his way out of this one........................ 

Oh and for you "racist" people who think I'm against Obama because of his race?  Socialism has nothing to do with race.  It has to do with freedom, rights, and what our forefathers fought for.  Yes much of Europe has socialist societies however, didn't our forefathers leave Europe because they were oppressed and taxed to start a new country, based on democracy?

And being president has nothing to do with race, it has to do with their economic policies, their beliefs, their values, their ethics, their track record, their associates, and their HISTORY.  Anyone who tries to change their history, is trying to hide something and control what you believe.  

And if you want to compare to McCain and Paulin, well... here's a news flash everyone.  Most if not all politicians LIE, cover facts, can be bought with cash via lobbying, and show no allegiance to anyone but their bank account.

But note, I have not said that McCain is the answer to our problems either................... 

Oh BTW, if the Democrats are right, then why are they thinking about doing away with the 401(k), and TAKING your retirement savings in exchange for an increased pension from the Social Security Administration.  Yet, they can GIVE at least $700 BILLION as a bank bailout?

And this isn't Marxism, or socialism?  Yea.........  All I have to say is lets see how Obama supports feel in about six to eighteen months about their hero.........  Time will tell the truth.

Misery Index


0 Responses to "Obama's Definition of "Change".. Does It Begin With Marxism? [Blue Pills with Kool-Aid]"

Post a Comment