Admittedly, this is not the mad dog Marxism of Lenin and Trotsky. That Marxism murdered about 25 million
people in Russia. Most were peasants who believed that they owned their farms. China’s Marxists
murdered about 65 million people to impose the “worker’s paradise” in China.

Barack Obama’s Marxism is the warm puppy Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. “Gramsci believed that the
working class was on the way to creating its own original culture, quite different from that of the
bourgeoisie: it would destroy bourgeois myths and prejudices and set up for the first time truly universal
spiritual values.” (Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, The Golden Age, The
Breakdown, translated by P. S. Falla, New York, W. W. Norton & Co., 2005, p. 980). “An important part of
Gramsci’s argument, the workers could only win if they achieved … the control of the intellectual life of
society by purely cultural means… The main task of the workers in modern times was to liberate
themselves spiritually from the culture of the bourgeoisie and the Church and to establish their own
cultural values in such a way as to attract the oppressed and intellectual strata to themselves.” (Ibid, p.
980, 981) These worker’s values are change and political consensus.

There are two world visions struggling for mastery of America. There is the vision of the founding
fathers. To the best of their ability, they chained the power of the government with our Constitution. They
believed that “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” (William Pitt, The
Elder, British Prime Minister, 1770). Our forefather’s views were formed by centuries of tyrannical kings
who fought freedom of speech and religion, who arrested persons, seized property and taxed arbitrarily.
They added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in 1791 to secure freedom from these abuses for the
American people.

The Marxists teach that human nature is good, that the natural man is noble and trustworthy. This world-
view ignores the lessons of history, believing that the “right” leader can solve all problems. It is the view
of those too preoccupied with their own lives to consider that the current state of the world is a direct
result of the nature of man.

In his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama discusses the Constitution in these words. “Some historians
and legal theorists conclude that the Constitution was largely a happy accident, a document cobbled
together not as a result of principle but as a result of power and passion; that we can never hope to
discern the Founder’s “original intentions”… And just as I recognize the comfort offered by the strict
constructionist, so I see a certain appeal in this shattering of myth, to the temptation to believe that the
constitutional text doesn’t constrain us much at all, so that we are free to assert our own values
unencumbered by fidelity to the stodgy traditions of a distant past… Maybe I am too steeped in the myth
of the founding to reject it entirely.” (The Audacity of Hope, New York, Three River Press, 2006, p. 91, 92).

In 1776, before the Declaration of Independence was written, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison (among others) authored the Constitution of the State of Virginia. George Mason would
later demand that a Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution and leave the constitutional convention
because his demand was refused. Jefferson went on to draft the Declaration of Independence and James
Madison would draft the U. S. Constitution.

These were brilliant educated men, well versed in the lessons of history and political philosophy. The
Constitution is a distillation of their wisdom and knowledge. It was no “happy accident.” That they
deliberately and with great thought created immortal documents is no myth. Further, the Constitution is
designed not to restrain citizens (there are plenty of other laws for that), it was written to define and
restrain government.

Further, Obama says, “It’s not just absolute power that the Founders sought to prevent. Implicit in its
structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty, was a rejection of absolute truth…” (Ibid, p. 93). Actually, the
founding fathers believed in both God and absolute truth. They wrote, “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.” (Declaration of Independence,
1776) There are similar statements in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which George Mason wrote.

In summation, Obama says, “The answer I settle on – which is by no means original to me – requires a
shift in metaphors, one that sees our democracy not as a house to be built, but as a conversation to be
had… What the framework of our Constitution can do is organize the way by which we argue about our
future. All of its elaborate machinery – its separation of powers and checks and balances and federalist
principles and Bill of Rights – are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in
which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality…
In sum, the Constitution envisions a road map by which we marry passion to reason, the ideal of
individual freedom to the demands of community.” (Ibid, p. 92)

That a man who taught constitutional law in a law school for 10 years could speak this way about the
foremost law in America is appalling. Quite simply, the Constitution is the greatest bulwark of individual
liberty ever devised; it is not a conversation. It does not require anything from citizens; it simply benefits
and protects them. In my opinion, the men who wrote the Bill of Rights were inspired by God.

My experience is not typical. I have been arrested once for investigating my government, twice more for
protesting the following cover-up, and twice more for things I did not do. I have unlocked jail doors by
preparing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (U. S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9) I also owe my
liberty to the due process of law clause which forces states to follow their own published Rules of
Criminal Procedure (Bill of Rights, Amendment 5) and the right to trial by jury and self-representation
(Amendment 6) and the right to bail (Amendment 8) and the grace of God. I have cause to love the
Constitution because it restrains out-of-control government. Thanks to the Constitution, I have never
been convicted of anything.

Is Obama really a Marxist? Marxists preach change, so does Obama. They preach new political
consensus, so does Obama (Ibid, p. 8, 10). They believe in tearing down the existing icons of society in
order to further their agenda of change and new political consensus; so does Obama, who reduces the
Constitution to a mere conversation starter. Is Obama really a Marxist? Time will tell, ask me again in four

A more immediate question, how can a man with Obama’s views swear to uphold the Constitution without
making a liar and a hypocrite of himself?

Amo Paul Bishop Roden