Do Americans truly understand ‘redistribution of wealth’?

By Virginia Prodan

The recently uncovered tape of Obama addressing students at Loyola University in 1998 has produced an uproar. In the tape, Obama expressed his admiration for redistributive government programs:

I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities?

If he is elected, Obama’s 1998 proposition will be reality in the next four years.

When he proposed to redistribute wealth, Ibama meant that the system has to find a “trick” way to transform your wealth into government’s hands. Government will then distribute that wealth to others of its choosing.

Your work and your wealth will belong to the government “in the name of society”; in other words, it will belong to the collective. Actually, though, your work and your wealth will belong to the elite of the government, who will decide who and what is given your money. This is what “redistribution of wealth” means in Obama’s philosophy; it is also the basic principle of communism.

The meaning of the “redistribution” of wealth is official government stealing and the end of your freedom. It is the beginning of your forced sacrifices for your leader, your government, and your society. This leads to a permanent realignment of power in society, as has been seen in Europe, or the rise of a dictator, as has been seen frequently in communist society.

For almost half of my life, I lived in communist Romania. I lived the other half in the free land, America. Believe me — I know what Obama is talking about and advocating for America.

Obama’s America is a communist society. As history shows, he will bring about this way of life by the following means:

1. Transforming private property into collective property.

The right to individual private ownership of property is sacred in America. American society is based on a person’s right to the fruit of his labors, not to mention his ancestors’ labors. The government has no right to take these away.

Under redistribution of wealth philosophy imposed by government — and of the communist system – you have no personal right to your work, property, or inheritance.

2. Destroying the initiative and creativity of people.

America’s wealth and prosperity were created by individuals with the great desire and creativity encouraged by a free society. Many Americans started at a lower income and with no prior wealth. Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs, among others, started with essentially nothing and built huge enterprises.

Creativity and working hard were emphasized by many successful Americans during their lives and after their deaths. Andrew Carnegie, for example, felt so strongly that each generation should make its own way that he left the bulk of his estate to charity.

The successes and consequent contributions of these “wealthy” people create growth and opportunities for other Americans, resulting in more success and wealth for America as a whole. But eliminating from society individual power and desire curtails and squashes the drive for success.

A government does not create wealth. It is the private sector, where new businesses are started and flourish, that allows opportunity and wealth to expand. The private sector is responsible for economic growth.

As America’s successful become wealthy, they are able to give more and support others, be it through research projects, schools, or the arts. Throughout history, it has been the wealthy who have commissioned fine art, musical compositions, museums, and other monuments of civilization.

3. Increasing the poverty of all who depend on government for basic needs.

Government redistribution will not help the poor. History has shown that redistribution of wealth makes all poor.

In communist societies like China, Russia, Romania, etc., there was and there is no equality of classes. Rather, there exist millions of poor people under a small, elite group of communist rich who never care about helping poor people.

History shows example after example of communist systems that have collapsed, each of which made promises like equality and justice and failed to deliver. But each of these collapses took millions of lives and many generations, as people discovered the lies and finally fought the system only at length.

American society is well-known for its compassion for and charity to the poor. Many programs, both private and public, are in place to help those seeking to overcome poverty. Yes, many in society believe we should be doing even more. But one must remember that poor people are part of our society who need to be helped, but not enabled.

We must not be stopped by the pressure of political correctness to acknowledge that many people have greater abilities than others — artistic or musical skills, abilities in mathematics or science, in leadership, in business, and so forth. Therefore, as people are different in abilities and effort, fairness of reward requires such differences. This is in fact the true “fair shake” we hear so much about today in politics.

Make no mistake: this November election starkly concerns what we want our future as a country to be. We have to decide if we want to elect a president who will bring us back to the American values of free market and free opportunities to pursue the American dream, or if we want to elect a president who will take us into socialism and communism — in other words, the end of our freedom, where government controls, dictates to, and owns us.

Redistribution of wealth means not equality, fairness, or justice, but rather poverty, slavery, and a complete lack of freedom.

Freedom is precious to those who don’t have it. Will free American people choose to be enslaved? I hope not. Do those Americans who think “redistribution of wealth” is wonderful and will make their lives easier really understand its world history and true consequences? That remains to be seen.

Read more on Virginia Prodan’s background at or See also her video on YouTube titled “Virginia Prodan’s Fight for Freedom and Escape from Romanian Communism.”

Read more:

Published in: on September 29, 2012 at 1:41 pm  Leave a Comment  

Illuminating the World of Hedge Funds…

Illuminating the World of Hedge Funds Infographic

Published in: on September 25, 2012 at 7:28 am  Leave a Comment  

The Simple Reason Socialism Always Fails

By Shaun Connell,

Modern sociology is essentially based on the teachings of Karl Marx. Few people mention the man with such reverence as a professor teaching how societies interact, evolve, and function. In a typical sociology classroom, the students and professor will learn about class warfare, economics, the survival of the fittest, as well as plenty of examples where the rich are “exploiting” the poor.

Karl Marx is considered the intellectual godfather of hundreds of thousands of professors, intellectuals, elitists, and anti-capitalists. He invented what’s known as the “Conflict Theory”, the notion that change occurs because of conflict between two groups of people. He was right about that, but he was hideously, deadly wrong about how he applied it.

Marx saw political conflict — people using resources and force to enslave other people — and he concluded that it wasn’t the use of force that was wrong, but the existence of capital. It’s a completely incoherent logical leap, and it had grave consequences for the rest of humanity.

Missing the Point With The Communist Manifesto

Karl Marx’s infamous “The Communist Manifesto” is the most important document he wrote, because it was the intellectual rallying cry of anti-capitalists everywhere.

It was the justification for confiscating trillions of dollars worth of property and then mismanaging it in the most incompetent economic planning the world has ever seen.

It was the justification for public executions of capitalists — people like myself, who own and use capital to produce even more.

Hundreds of millions of capitalists were murdered because of Marx’s philosophy. Families were wiped out, husbands were hanged, children made orphans, economies destroyed, and during the Cold War, the world itself almost met its fiery end due to the insane delusions of equality by the power-greedy communists.

In this document, Marx wrote the following:

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”

What laughable insanity. This man of a giant beard and a small mind referenced power as the reason the poor were “victims”, and yet his response wasn’t the downfall of the ruling classes — it was taking political inequality and unleashing it in a manner the world had never seen before.

Consolidating power to the state doesn’t end inequality — consolidating power fosters inequality. Not all men are free to rule their neighbors, because that is outlawed under socialist dogma. Under socialism, a handful of men determine the rules, the economic planning, and the rations that the rest of the “workers” will receive.

The end-goal, socialists argue, is a society where power isn’t necessary. But to get there, they explain, we need to consolidate power in a socialist economy. A handful of men need to be given the power to decide what to do with everyone’s property, what ideas can be discussed, what lives can be ended, and what freedoms must be deleted for the sake of the eventual “common good”.

Learn the Lessons of History

Anyone who understands human nature sees the flaw here. Men abuse; absolute power tends to the abuse of power. But instead of people trying to manipulate others with money and resources through marketing, they created a society where negotiation began and ended with force — violence, prisons, executions, starvation.

The greatest source of inequality in the 20th century was socialism itself.

The greatest cause of poverty in the 20th century was socialism itself.

The greatest catalyst for exploitation in the 20th century was socialism itself.

They realized that the “ruling class” was wrecking havoc on society, and then concluded that it wasn’t the power — it was the money itself. The irony of such a misplaced philosophy and a self-defeating movement would be humorous if it hadn’t wrecked havoc with an evil the world had never seen before.

Let the ruling classes tremble? They tremble in excitement because they will be the ones who control your socialist empire.

Nothing to lose but your chains? Communism enslaves billions. Nothing to lose? Except your families to starvation, your friends to execution, your material well-being through rationing, and your freedom itself.

Working men of all countries? We have no time for angry and violent riots — we are carrying your world on our shoulders.

The Real Conflict is: Liberty Vs. Slavery

Marx was right about one thing: social movement occurs from perceived class conflict. The poor are progressively becoming more and more socialistic in America, not because the rich are harming them, but because they perceive the world as being owned, controlled, and regulated by a handful of the super rich — even though this is economically, historically, and politically inaccurate.

No one will ever argue that some of the rich do not abuse their wealth with regulations, bailouts, and subsidies — but the problem isn’t the existence of capital; the problem is political force itself.

For example, I am a capitalist. I take my wealth and multiply it through leverage, business projects, and other endeavors. I will not, however, use my money to manipulate the system in order to destroy other businesses. I will not take my money to manipulate the economy so I get an advantage over others.

Other companies, like Wal-Mart and Microsoft, almost always utilize their wealth to buy politicians in order to take down their competitors. This is not a flaw of capitalism — this is a flaw of corruption. It is not a flaw of freedom when someone abandons it — that is a definitional impossibility and a self-defeating concept.

The root of all social evil is unwarranted force — the violation of the rights of others. Murder, theft, rape, war — these are the things of evil. The free market doesn’t include any of these concepts. Once we understand this, all else follows, and we’ll soon come to realize that capitalism is the only moral economic system that protects and respects the rights of all men — regardless of their class.

Published in: on September 22, 2012 at 8:33 am  Leave a Comment  


“The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.” – Milton Friedman

Published in: on September 22, 2012 at 8:24 am  Leave a Comment