Election 2008

Current mood: disappointed
Category: News and Politics

“I will remain heartbroken that on Nov 4, 2008 the United States of America chose communism over democracy. Stalin is laughing in his grave!”

This was my thought this morning in the wake of the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States of America.

So that was what I placed in the “status”section of both my facebook and MySpace pages. In response, I was sent a message that I should look up communism, listen to the rhetoric of Obama and “get a clue.”

So, . . . the definition of communism:

In the schema of historical materialism communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions. According to Karl Marx, socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership.

Translated that means taking the money that I make from my own hard work and sharing it with everyone else, regardless of their productivity in society.

And the rhetoric of Obama:

In a 2001 interview, Obama said:

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

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. 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 as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way,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 doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think 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 coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

Do you get that, people? Kennedy said,'Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.' Obama says, 'Ask not what you can do for your country but ask what your country MUST DO FOR YOU.'

 

I remember the the bread lines of the “proletariat” in Russia under communist rule, while the leaders lived in the lap of excess luxury. There will ALWAYS be class in society. It is unavoidable. But FREEDOM comes from a minimalist government, maximum personal liberties and the insistence of personal responsibility of all the people. Charity should be private, not government mandated. Sloth should not be rewarded. Dependence should not be fostered.

These are scary times.

The only thing the government should do on my behalf is to create a military to protect our borders and to negotiate with foreign countries to keep them the hell out. Everything else the people of the nation can do for themselves and for each other.

So….. Who needs to get a clue?