Posts Tagged ‘redistribution of wealth’

Redistributing Wealth: Why Not Just Be Consistent And ‘Redistribute’ Beauty And Justice, Too?

March 31, 2010

Max Baucus gave us yet another remark from a Democrat acknowledging the REAL purpose of ObamaCare:

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”

Well, that and “to control the people.”  And to inevitably lead us into a fully socialist single payer system, or course.

Here’s Baucus on Youtube explaining the need to use Obamacare to redistribute wealth:

We can go back to Obama himself, of course, and hear him talking about “spreading the wealth” to Joe the Plumber.

Redistribution of wealth wants to “spread out” equality, such that we’re all  level.

But we’re NOT all level.  Some people are smarter than other people.  Some people are bigger and stronger and faster than others.  Some people are more creative than others.  Some people have a higher work ethic or ethics in general ethic than others.  Some people work harder than others.  And darn it, some people are just better looking than others.

And since we’re not all level, we see wildly disparate economic results.  When liberals try to “level the playing field” and “spread the wealth around” and “address the maldistribution of wealth,” what they are doing is not merely ignoring fundamental economic realities, but fundamental human realities.

If they’re going to “level the playing field,” they should be consistent, and apply their philosophy across the board.

Even when you get aside from the blameworthiness of the poor (i.e., never bothering to get off one’s butt to look for a job; or never working hard enough or showing responsibility enough to advance to the next level), you’ve still got some issues with wealth redistribution.  For instance, is it “fair” that some people are far more physically attractive than others?  Those pretty people get all the opportunities; whereas, non-pretty people, through no fault of their own, must struggle.  We should redistribute beauty!!!  We should be carving up the pretty people and giving some of their beautiful features to the non-pretty people!!!

I mean, why feel sorry for somebody who never bothered to apply himself or herself?  Who never bothered to work hard, or pursue training/schooling, or made smart choices?  It would seem that that short, fat, butt-ugly guy with the unfortunate flatulence should be the one who merits our sympathy, if anyone does.

Here’s another nice take on the idea of redistributing beauty (I wanted to see if redistributing beauty was my brainchild, and darn it, but it wasn’t!).

That’s the SAME idiotic reasoning that is used to justify wealth redistribution.

We could also move to re-distributing justice.

Let’s take it on the liberal’s argument.  It’s not that black inner-city gang banging kid’s fault that he’s a violent criminal; it’s society’s fault.  That poor kid is a victim.  That poor kid didn’t get the economic opportunities that others did.  He didn’t have a safe home environment.  He didn’t have good public schools.  He was surrounded by poverty and the grinding consequences of poverty, and he was literally conditioned into his life of crime.  So let’s take the punishment that falls on that kid for his crime and redistribute it, spread it out, and make it “fair.”  It seems to me that if that inner city gang-banger murders some innocent kid in a drive-by shooting, Al Gore should go to jail.  Maybe Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, and we can “spread the justice” between the two of them.

I mean, that poor guy doesn’t have any freedom (metaphor for wealth).  He’s facing life.  And there are all sorts of people outside the penitentiary who have all sorts of freedom.  So we can help that guy out by grabbing you and taxing some of your freedom so we can redistribute it to the convict.

If that welfare queen shouldn’t be held responsible for her “inability” to get off her butt and work, why should the gang-banger be held responsible for his “inability” to live an ethical life?

You know what the liberal will say: “Well, that welfare queen isn’t hurting anybody.”

But she damn sure is: she’s hurting me.  She’s hurting my kids.  Because some jerk keeps seizing my wealth and the wealth I want to leave for my children and giving it to that welfare queen.  She sure IS hurting other people with her laziness and indolence.  And in point of fact the only way she’s NOT going to hurt other people is if liberals stop taking other peoples’ money and redistributing it to her.

Burton Folsom, Jr. points out how this mindset was anathema to America until FDR came along:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans beleived that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

The way it used to be is the way it ought to be again.

Folsom goes on to document how A) administrations and courts had throughout history repeatedly ruled “welfare” programs unconstitutional until the New Deal and B) how they did in fact become a political boondoggle during the New Deal.  And that has been the growing trend ever since.

Benjamin Franklin put it this way: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Samuel Adams said:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Franklin also said:

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. … Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”

These three statements, when combined together, mean: 1) Those who don’t pay their own way are a disgrace to themselves and a disgrace to their countrymen; 2) If you ARE forced to pay your own way in life, you will ultimately be the better for it, both in your provision and in your character; and 3) If we continue on the social welfare spending track we’re on, we will destroy our nation.

Liberals yearn to be more like Europe, just as they always have.  Thomas Jefferson said, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  And that is every bit as true today as it was when Jefferson said it.

FDR waged a war on poverty that has been going on for 77 years.  Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty anew in 1964.  And poverty has been kicking our asses ever since.  We’re no better off than we were before; in fact, we’re worse off.

What has the war on poverty got us?  As much poverty as ever, and a debt of ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE TRILLION DOLLARS (just add our total US debt with our debt in unfunded liabilities).

There’s that Dr. Phil question: “How’s federal government war on poverty working for you?

Frankly, if we had been “redistributing” pieces out of Brad Pitt’s and Angelina Jolie’s faces to give to the less beautiful, or if we’d been “redistributing” justice by taking freedom from Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to give more freedom to convicts, it would have been morally idiotic.  Still, if we’d done those things instead of redistributing wealth, it would have saved us a few million tons of money.

Firsthand Account That Obama Was A Hard-Core Marxist In College

February 24, 2010

The lamestream dinosaur media is constantly out there telling us that only whackjobs ever even consider that Barack Obama might be a socialist.  They put up a straw man: “He’s not trying to take your house from you,” as though there is no such thing as even a single degree between hard-core Marxism and free market capitalism.

For the record, there is.  And Obama is waaaaaaayyyyy toward the side of that political spectrum that is taking this country toward socialism.

Obama has taken over banks and car companies, and wants to take over our health care system.  He keeps propping things up when free market capitalism wants to let the system bottom out so it can rebound and reach equilibrium again.  He believes in the redistribution of wealth so he can “spread the wealth around.”  He believes in class warfare.  He believes that private businesses are greedy and evil.

And 77% of investors in American businesses that create jobs rightly believe that Obama is “anti-business.”

Dr. John C. Drew has his own website, and has posted numerous articles and Youtubed interviews which further describe his recollections of a very Marxist Barack Obama.

The article that follows should add some meat to the Obama statement that:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

I didn’t carefully choose those radical leftists and communists as my friends.  Did YOU?

Obama, a College Marxist?
Deborah Lambert, February 22, 2010

Until now, precious little information has come to light about President Obama’s youthful political views. That may change as disclosures by former political science professor Dr. John C. Drew eventually surface in the mainstream press.

During an evening he spent with Obama in late 1980, Drew, a former Marxist-turned-conservative-Republican, recalled during an interview on Breitbart TV’s “The B-cast” that the young Obama was not only a passionate Marxist, but a Marxist-Leninist, devoted to the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system in America.

The meeting occurred in late December, 1980 when Drew, a 1979 Occidental College graduate in his second year of Cornell University grad school, visited his girlfriend, still an Occidental student, who shared a political theory class with Obama.

Drew recalled that Obama, then a college sophomore, showed up in a BMW with his closest friend Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, and “we all went out to dinner, partied and drank, smoked cigarettes—and we did what young Marxists do—we basically argued politics.”

Before the get-together, his then-girlfriend described Obama as “one of us.” What she meant by that was that “he was on our team . . . a blood brother . . .a fellow revolutionary,” said Drew.

As a serious Marxist revolutionary himself in those days, Drew said that as soon as he met young Barack, he realized that this radical college sophomore wasn’t just “dabbling in Marxism . . . he was a Marxist-Leninist dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist system.”

Drew says on his website (www.anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com) that his “most vivid memory of Obama was the way he strongly argued a rather simple-minded version of Marxist theory,” while he (Drew) had moved on to a more pessimistic graduate school view that true revolution would never happen in this country.

Drew’s meeting with the young Obama occurred shortly after he experienced his first taste of campus notoriety when publicly speaking out on the anti-apartheid issue and co-founding the anti-apartheid group that is mentioned in Dreams of My Father.

During their meeting, Drew recalls that Obama believed that “America was definitely the enemy, and American elites were the enemy, and whatever America was doing was definitely wrong and bad. He thought that perhaps the Soviet Union was misunderstood, and it was doing a better job for its people than most people realized,” Drew noted in a Newsmax interview.

Although Drew did his senior honors thesis at Occidental on Marxist Economics, his doctoral research at Cornell in 1984 triggered a move to the political right when he realized the fallacy of the Marxist class struggle argument.

However, when Drew crossed the ideological divide from Marxist to conservative Republican, it may have made his academic career a bit more challenging.

As an assistant political science professor at Williams College from 1986 – 1989, Drew was one of three registered Republicans on the faculty. Armed with his newly adopted belief system, Drew says he complained to the powers-that-be about the school’s affirmative action policies that favored less qualified African-American faculty candidates over white candidates, saying that these policies “took away the honor of being a Williams College professor.”

Now a grant-writing consultant in Laguna Niguel, California, Drew says that his meeting with Obama some 30 years ago provided useful evidence of why he was able to win the trust and support of people like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Alice Palmer. He believes that Obama “never surrendered that tough, Marxist socialist ideology I saw in him as a sophomore at Occidental College.”

When Drew is asked why he took so long to go public with this story, he is quick to explain that although he tried to get the story out during the presidential campaign in 2008, no one in the media would touch it.

In fact, Drew says he was frustrated when he couldn’t get this information out during campaign season, since candidate Obama “was making it sound like people thought he was a socialist because he didn’t share his toys in kindergarten, but I thought he was a socialist because I’d seen him argue from a hard Marxist point of view.”

Obama’s career path was entirely predictable, according to Drew, who says the first logical career move for a revolutionary right out of college is to become a labor organizer or a community organizer. The second step is to become a college professor.

During his stint as a University of Chicago adjunct professor, Obama “was basically promoting the socialist revolution, saying that our Constitution promotes negative liberties but not the positive liberties of a society that advocates wealth distribution.”

Drew’s encounter with the future president nearly 30 years ago sheds some light on the young Obama’s political ideology, one of the many aspects of his life that has not undergone any serious scrutiny by the mainstream press. Drew regards his “15 minutes of fame” that began with a Newsmax interview in February, 2010 as an “opportunity to share what I know about the ‘red diaper’ ideology of the young Barack Obama.”

Saying that he would still be teaching in Massachusetts were it not for the liberal Democrats that control Williams College, Drew says he was pleased that Scott Brown was recently elected as the state’s newest senator, adding that his election “marks the end of the Obama revolution.”

Dr. Drew’s experience of Obama 30 years ago accurately reflects the course of Barack Obama’s life, both before and after that encounter.

My worldview was already fairly well established by the time I graduated from college.  Which is why the notion that Obama was a radical Marxist-Leninist in college, but he’s perfectly mainstream American in his values now just seems like a total load of crap to me.  And then you pair common-sense reality up with the fact that Obama was continuing to advocate Marxist notions even after he stopped being a student and started being a professor.

The same mainstream media that flew cross-country so they could dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage refused to look into Barack Obama’s record.

The media allowed Obama to be “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  But you can bet your bottom dollar (and like it or not you DID bet your bottom dollar when you voted for this guy) that he had his own views all along.

The REAL Intent Of Cap-And-Trade: Bringing Global Governance

July 18, 2009

I have longed believed that global warming was based on an agenda intended to bring about the socialist redistribution of wealth and create the one-world order long feared by conspiracy theorists and believers in the Book of Revelation.

I don’t have to “believe” any longer, though.  Because Al Gore spilled the beans on the socialist boondoggle.

From the Climate Depot:

“I bring you good news from the U.S., “Gore said on July 7, 2009 in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.

“Just two weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate bill,” Gore said, noting it was “very much a step in the right direction.” President Obama has pushed for the passage of the bill in the Senate and attended a G8 summit this week where he agreed to attempt to keep the Earth’s temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees C.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

And, yep, they want that socialist redistribution of wealth, too:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

And how else do we redistribute the wealth but by taxing the bejeezus out of the people who produce wealth so we can take the fruits of their hard work and success away from them and give it to the non-productive?

In addition, calls for a global carbon tax have been urged at recent UN global warming conferences. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”

“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the 2007 UN conference after a panel titled “A Global CO2 Tax.”

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

It doesn’t matter that the U.S. isn’t the worst polluter any more. Not even close.  China now has that distinction, and is expected to continue to pull away from all other competitors for the title.  China is building 500 new coal plants, averaging one every four days.  The U.S. is now second, and will very shortly be third, behind India.

The fact that neither China nor India want anything to do with hamstringing their economies for the sake of an increasingly obvious bogus global warming theory is utterly beside the point.

And whether the theory is true or not is really besides the point for the supporters of such hard-core environmental measures, anyway.  Just ask former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, who said:

We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

It’s the thought that counts, after all.  Now matter how much that thought counts, or how many American people’s lives are negatively impacted by it.

It doesn’t really matter that the science tells us that we haven’t had any “global warming” for a minimum of five years now, and that we can actually expect global cooling for the next 20 years.  The science increasingly is telling us something that your average nursery school kid could have told you (get ready for this): THE SUN WARMS THE EARTH!!! But if the facts get in the way of our socialist redistributionist global warming theories, dammit, then so much the worse for the facts.  When will you get that through your thick heads?

A C-SPAN transcript of James Inhofe as entered into the Congressional Record is a fun read for former conspiracy theorists who are now simply reporting the plain facts:

Jacques Chirac said:

Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance.

That is not me. That is Jack Chirac. It answers the question why are these countries over in Europe so interested that we do something in this country that is going to hurt our economy. The answer came from Margot Wallstrom, Minister of the Environment for the European Union. She said:

Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.

Yes, there are other countries that would love to have America be overtaxed and have all these economic problems that we don’t have right now. It could inure to their benefit; there is no question about that. No one would deny that.

There’s nothing new about foreign countries wanting to undermine America by seeing it destroy itself with stupid and useless energy policies.  What is NEW is that we elected a president of our own country who wants to undermine America by seeing it destroy itself with stupid and useless energy policies.

Barack Obama, in a candid moment during a speech to supporters in San Francisco:

“The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

Obama also said he’d bankrupt coal plants, with coal being America’s number one domestic energy resource responsible for half of our nation’s electricity.  And refusing to use the resources God gave us when there is clearly nothing even CLOSE to being as cheap or as efficient is hardly the way to improve our national sovereignty.

It comes as no surprise to those who have been following Obama’s radical leftist agenda that his own choice for “climate czar” would be a documented socialist and member of a group that calls for “global governance.”

These are people who LOVE to take advantage of any “crisis” they can find to ram home their agenda.  Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said it; Obama’s Secretary of State said it.  And when they get their crises, they use them to ram home their socialist global governance agenda.

Thomas Jefferson, understanding how truly marvelous and exceptional the nation he helped create truly was, said to those who would have us look toward Europe, “The comparisons of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell.”

Unfortunately, too many liberal elites such as Barack Obama are now trying to bring that hell to our shores.

Jeremiah Wright Follows in the Footsteps of Marxist Leaders

April 19, 2008

When you read about “liberation theology,” you swiftly discover that it has deep roots in Marxist thought. When you read about liberation theology, you quickly see that the “redistribution of wealth” is a central pillar of the movement. And, when you read about “black liberation theology,” you find out that the typical class distinction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is extended to include the race distinction between the blacks and the whites.

The problem with Marxism from the outset has always been that the beatific potrait of a classless society – with the evil bourgeoisie purged from its ranks – has in actual reality never amounted to more than a sick joke. When we looked at how Stalin and his Communist Party hierarchy lived in relation to the poor, simple proletariat in the U.S.S.R., or whether we looked at how Mao Tse Tung and his Communist party hierarchy lived in relation to the poor, simple proletariat in the People’s Republic of China, we saw the same rampant, arrogant, hypocritical corruption and oppression.

And – of course – the oppressor class of rich, wealthy bourgeoisie was immediately replaced by an oppressor class of rich, wealthy Marxists who swiftly employed levels of brutality and control that dwarfed the wildest imaginings of any political system that had come before. In the name of “the people,” a State system whose leaders lived unimaginably more luxurious lives than those in whose names they ruled engaged in campaigns of disinformation and brutal terror to keep “the people” under their abject dominion.

It didn’t matter where you turned – Kim Jung Il’s North Korea or Fidel Castro’s Cuba – it was invariably the same thing. Marxism had a perfect track record. The leaders of Marxism preached an idyllic “Absurdity of Hope”-style message promising “change” as the policies of the redistribution of wealth took root thoughout the society. But all the while, they were in fact hoarding that wealth for themselves even as they demonized economic and political systems that were in fact far superior to Marxism in producing and providing economic benefit for the poor.

So now we turn to Jeremiah Wright, who has been an advocate of black liberation theology throughout his 35 year-plus tenure at Trinity United Church of Christ. For all those years, he railed against white greed, and the oppressive white society that oppressed the poor class of blacks and usurped its wealth for themselves. He implemented a black value system that included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.”

And now – just like Joseph Stalin, just like Mao Tse Tung, just like Pol Pot, just like Fidel Castro, just like Kim Jung Il and his father before him, just like so many Marxists leaders – Jeremiah Wright gets to enjoy his moment when he lavishly lives just like the people he spent his life demonizing.

Jeremiah Wright gets to live large, just like all the Marxist leaders who came before him.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is retiring to a 10,000 square foot, $1.6 million home on the fairway of high-class Tinley Park, courtesy of his loving flock. And the same loving flock has provided him with a $10 million line of church credit to live on.
http://www.slate.com/id/2188414/

The gated country club community, by the way, consists an elite population consisting of 98% lilly white rich people.

Now, I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be the only human being on the face of the planet who thinks he sees massive hypocrisy here.  But somehow I just don’t interpret “Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness” to mean, “Bypass middleclassness altogether and go straight for filthy rich.”

Jeremiah Wright spent his career screaming for a massive redistribution of wealth. And he got one: from all the families of the mostly poor black congregation to his own wealthy estate on a nearly all white country club. He railed for black separatism under a black value system. But it appears that his black value system simply doesn’t suit him any more.

Had Reverend Wright NOT embraced black liberation theology, there would have been nothing wrong with his retiring to such wealth. But when you become the very thing you rail against and urge others to abandon, you become the very definition of “hypocrite.”

This doesn’t in any way directly condemn Senator Barack Obama, of course, other than to point out just how flawed his judgment truly was in aligning himself with a man like Jeremiah Wright, and to raise the legitimate question as to whether Obama’s own “Audacity of Hope” message is as hypocritical and self-serving as the man who was the source of that message turned out to be.