October 31st, 2008

As we have seen my previous post below, Robin Hood’s original audacity was not robbing the rich to give to the poor.

So, we have Obama.

So, we have Obama.

So, we have Obama.

So, we have Obama.

So, we have Obama.

Obama promises us extra money cut from the pockets of the wealthy. ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’ (Marx) He also promises free rein to our degrading culture of death, doesn’t he? Like same-sex marriage and murder of the unborn?

First of all, Obama does not seem to like free market capitalism.

Obama says:

"[McCain's] philosophy says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down ... they call it the ownership society but what it really means is that you're on your own."

Give more? Uh-oh, really the idea is “take less". Are we so alone in the capitalistic system that we must surrender our persons and rights to the government?

Here’s more of what he says:

"And we know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs that disappear, people's life savings have been put at risk, millions of families face forclosure and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything, from gas, to groceries, to healthcare has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors feels like it's slowly slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled down."

"So let's be clear. What we've seen in the last few days in nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."

"It is time to put an end to the broken system in Washington."

And he plays off our fears, blaming the economic difficulty on capitalistic policies. The problem instead springs from liberal ideals of everyone with a home, so everyone gets a loan, so a lot of people can’t pay it, so the banks go under. These “economic policies” began under Clinton.

So what is Obama’s new philosophy?

So how does Obama propose to do it?

"Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change, through the courts. The institution just isn't structured that way."


Let’s look at this steal from the rich idea. I think the Soviets tried that out. So did Cuba. So did China. Is the idea to morph into a homogeneous mixture with our enemies? So we’re all the same and we tick alike to the Kremlin’s chime? Because if so, it doesn’t mean they’re going to like us any better.

Do we really have to do this? Does this really have to happen? It comes down to choosing McCain or Obama. Don’t be deluded. Bad men get in because good people do nothing. Either McCain is in, or Obama. If you want to experience the steel jaws of Marxism, just stay home, or vote Obama, or vote for any of the lesser-known names on the ballot. This is not the time to teach the Republicans a lesson. Because you’ll actually be teaching yourself a lesson.

Yeah, but what about the Constitution? How would Obama get around that?

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and served more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try 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 since it's been interpreted, and Warren court interpreted it in the same way that- that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the Federal Government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the State government must do on your behalf."

"And that hasn't shifted"

"and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, 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 redistributive change

and in some ways we still suffer from that."

*The Warren Court banned Bible reading and prayer from the public schools, protected obscenity, and allowed contraception, despite its positive activities in de-segregation. Its rulings on contraception and ‘privacy’ paved the way for Roe vs. Wade.

So he says we break free of the Constitutional restraints by activities on the ground and coalitions of power and political and community organizing. For the purpose of redistributing wealth.

Obama, do you like the Constitution or don’t you?

"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot."

"I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."


Conclusion: Apparently Obama has Marxist ideology.

If you want to hear these quotes live, go to YouTube and check them out:

How to bring about Re-Distributive Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

They call it the Ownership Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlZt5iN96iM&feature=related

Flawed Constitution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

On the opposite side of the policy coin, let’s look at the capitalist John McCain. Let’s look at his real side, his human personality.

Let’s hear his experiences as a POW.

You tell me, John McCain isn’t perfect. Yeah: I’ve read about his faults too. Nobody’s perfect. But this particular man has been tortured past belief for his honor.

John McCain as a POW:

John McCain was downed over enemy territory on Oct. 26, 1967. He became a prisoner of war, with broken limbs. Because McCain’s father was the Admiral, the Vietnamese had decided to give him the choice of early release, so that then they could tell all the other fellows who’d been prisoners longer about how unfair the US was.

He was given three chances to accept release. The following is written by McCain (though shortened for this post) on his 3rd chance:

"The Rabbit" and "The Cat" were sitting there. I walked in and sat down, and "The Rabbit" said, "Our senior wants to know your final answer."
"My final answer is the same. It's 'No.' "

"That is your final answer?"

"That is my final answer."

"With this "The Cat," who was sitting there with a pile of papers in front of him and a pen in his hand, broke the pen in two. Ink spurted all over. He stood up, kicked the chair over behind him, and said, "They taught you too well. They taught you too well"—in perfect English, I might add. He turned, went out and slammed the door, leaving "The Rabbit" and me sitting there.

"The Rabbit" said "Now, McCain, it will be very bad for you. Go back to your room."

What they wanted, of course, was to send me home at the same time that my father took over as commander in the Pacific. This would have made them look very humane in releasing the injured son of a top U. S. officer. It would also have given them a great lever against my fellow prisoners, because the North Vietnamese were always putting this "class" business on us. They could have said to the others "Look, you poor devils, the son of the man who is running the war has gone home and left you here. No one cares about you ordinary fellows." I was determined at all times to prevent any exploitation of my father and my family.

There was another consideration for me. Even though I was told I would not have to sign any statements or confessions before I went home, I didn't believe them. They would have got me right up to that airplane and said, "Now just sign this little statement." At that point, I doubt that I could have resisted, even though I felt very strong at the time.

But the primary thing I considered was that I had no right to go ahead of men like Alvarez, who had been there three years before I "got killed"—that's what we say instead of "before I got shot down," because in a way becoming a prisoner in North Vietnam was like being killed.

About a month and a half later, I was set up for some very severe treatment which lasted for the next year and a half. One night the guards came to my room and said "The camp commander wants to see you." This man was a particularly idiotic individual. We called him "Slopehead."

They took me out of my room to "Slopehead," who said,

"You have violated all the camp regulations. You're a black criminal. You must confess your crimes."

I said that I wouldn't do that.

"Why are you so disrespectful of guards?"

"Because the guards treat me like an animal."

When I said that, the guards, who were all in the room—about 10 of them—really laid into me. They bounced me from pillar to post, kicking and laughing and scratching. After a few hours of that, ropes were put on me and I sat that night bound with ropes. Then I was taken to a small room. For punishment they would almost always take you to another room where you didn't have a mosquito net or a bed or any clothes. For the next four days, I was beaten every two to three hours by different guards. My left arm was broken again and my ribs were cracked.

They wanted a statement saying that I was sorry for the crimes that I had committed against North Vietnamese people and that I was grateful for the treatment that I had received from them. This was the paradox—so many guys were so mistreated to get them to say they were grateful. But this is the Communist way.

I held out for four days. Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide, because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope.

I said, O.K., I'll write for them.

They took me up into one of the interrogation rooms, and for the next 12 hours we wrote and rewrote. The North Vietnamese interrogator, who was pretty stupid, wrote the final confession, and I signed it. It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes, and other generalities. It was unacceptable to them. But I felt just terrible about it. I kept saying to myself, "Oh, God, I really didn't have any choice." I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.

Then the "gooks" made a very serious mistake, because they let me go back and rest for a couple of weeks. They usually didn't do that with guys when they had them really busted. I think it concerned them that my arm was broken, and they had messed up my leg. I had been reduced to an animal during this period of beating and torture. My arm was so painful I couldn't get up off the floor. With the dysentery, it was a very unpleasant time.

Thank God they let me rest for a couple of weeks. Then they called me up again and wanted something else. I don't remember what it was now—it was some kind of statement. This time I was able to resist. I was able to carry on. They couldn't "bust" me again.

I was finding that prayer helped. It wasn't a question of asking for superhuman strength or for God to strike the North Vietnamese dead. It was asking for moral and physical courage, for guidance and wisdom to do the right thing. I asked for comfort when I was in pain, and sometimes I received relief. I was sustained in many times of trial.

When the pressure was on, you seemed to go one way or the other. Either it was easier for them to break you the next time, or it was harder. In other words, if you are going to make it, you get tougher as time goes by. Part of it is just a transition from our way of life to that way of life. But you get to hate them so bad that it gives you strength.

Now I don't hate them any more—not these particular guys. I hate and detest the leaders. Some guards would just come in and do their job. When they were told to beat you they would come in and do it. Some seemed to get a big bang out of it. Some, who were pretty damned sadistic, seemed to get a big thrill out of the beatings.

From that time on it was one round of rough treatment followed by another. Sometimes I got it three or four times a week."



You can read about McCain’s experiences here:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter3.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/01/28/john-mccain-prisoner-of-war-a-first-person-account.html

Now people seem to have this impression, this callous impression … that McCain is just another cold White male. Just a politician, I guess. If you think so, I dare you, dare you! to watch the footage of McCain as a POW. You’ll see what he’s like under pain and trauma. You’ll see a living and breathing human being. You have to see this.

http://online.worldmag.com/2008/10/23/mccain-pow-footage/

Right now, people are suing for it to be taken down, so watch while you may!

So really, it comes down to this: Marxism or Maverick. You have to decide. Your vote does matter. You decide: which is better? Don’t let the media disguise Marxy doctrine beneath conservative varnishes.

To elect someone with Marxist doctrine is dangerous, regardless of whether they will or will not be capable of fulfilling their ideology.

If you think Obama’s ideology will go and harness the big government beast and give you an especially pleasant ride, please remember: Power may corrupt, but

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Socialism, communism, Marxism, are all about power. It is not a system where you rule. As Orwell says,

“All men are equal but some are more equal than others.”

I know, it’s appealing when Obama promises other people’s earnings, but it’s calculated to put him on top, not to take care of you.

If you want proof that those systems don’t work like they’re hawked around to, look at the nations that live in them! You won’t see plush pudding. You’ll see steel and concrete and barbed fences to keep you in. You’ll feel the cold. This is the ideology Obama is using.

If Obama and company are entrusted with a filibuster-proof system, then Marx my words: ill will come of it. It may not be the Soviet States of America, in which case Obama is full of hot air, but there will be cause for regret …

Conclusion:


Obama isn’t Robin Hood, because Robin Hood was not from the Kremlin.