Something I wrote a year or two ago. Who is this guy? The devil? He has gotten the Dems to drop the name of God after he has been doing it for four years....

This description of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's fiscal plan reflects the president's view that people have whatever money they have only by the grace of government, which has the legal and moral authority to rearrange it at will. Hence declining to raise taxes to pay for open-ended, ruinously expensive health care entitlements is the same as robbing the poor to pay the rich. These dueling perspectives have a Randian ring.

This is the distilled version that we heard the Obamessiah argue in his recent budget speech, but one must consider the underlying philosophy to this position, it is that the government gives to you, not you that gives to the government, in order to pay for those essential services that only government can deliver. In typical communist fashion, you are not a sovereign individual within a society, but one of the society group, where this group is the focus objective and that society or group has the standing over the individual from a performance objective from the leviathan.

But lets get a little deeper into this conceptual framework that the communist Obamessiah is toying with here....



Besides, in typical communist secular fashion, dropping the mention of the creator from the quote from the "Declaration of Independence" the Obamessiah also changes a specific term....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by certain inalienable Rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The actual document.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Listen to the Obamessiah and read the above again closely, it is clear to me that he uses inalienable instead of unalienable. So, you may ask, what is the big problem with this? Well, he made 2 unnecessary changes in the quotation from the original document. So lets have a look a the the differences between inalienable and unalienable....

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally philosopher Locke used the word property. However property such as land, buildings and personal goods can be considered a limited universe of physical goods, Jefferson and others broadened the limited word property to include opportunity and to pursue all endeavors that promote an individual's portfolio of satisfying behavior by using pursuit of happiness) are clearly unalienable rights, those conferred from God and those that we are endowed with by the simple fact that we are human. However, the Obamessiah cleverly changes this. He is saying that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) are rights that are conferred upon you by the government. When one accepts that premise, that these are rights are those that are given then it naturally argues that these rights can therefore be taken away.

These inalienable rights are a conceptual framework that is the foundation of communist philosophy....

But the communist revolution does not end with the negation of individual liberty and equality ("collectivism"), but with the "negation of the negation": "individual property" in the capitalist regime is in fact the "expropriation of the immediate producers.

From Wikipedia, here. As long as there is individual property, and that capital uses labor to unlock the value of this property, collectivism cannot exist by definition. However, if the government by definition, owns the rights of ones property that comes from labor and capital then it is achieving albeit by a roundabout path, the capital and therefore is achieving communist collectivism.

Obama Transforms Tax Hikes Into Spending Cuts - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine