We have a clear idea of what Barack Obama means by “change”: Guest Post by Grizzly Redistribution is not equality. The concept of redistribution necessitates first the seizure of the subject of the redistribution by the state and second the reapportionment of that subject as the state deems fit. In effect, taking property or rights belonging to one group to grant to another at the whim of those in charge of the effort.And when you redistribute resources, you block the creation of new resources. The Constitution recognizes that all are created as equals, and possess inalienable rights such as life liberty and the right to pursue a way of life that brings them happiness. The duty of government is thus to insure a level playing field that allows all to pursue their dreams without government interference. By Obama’s own admission, the Constitution remains an impediment to his dream. The Constitution, in Obama’s own words is fundamentally flawed: Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”. That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Government was structured so as not to limit the rights of the people, but to protect them.Again, the mere hint of “redistribution” necessitates taking from one to give to another. It goes well beyond the bounds of simple socialism, and treads firmly in the territory of communism. “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs”. Karl Marx. There is no question that Obama’s remarks were in the context of advocating socialism. To lament the failure of the judicial system in not being the vehicle to effect wealth redistribution coupled with identifying the “failures” of the Constitution in this regard reveals a candidate that blows past socialism. Obama is advoc