When Barack Obama promised to reshape America- the most successful, advanced, wealthy and selfless nation in history- he wasn’t kidding.

In July 2013 Barack Obama announced his plans to punish white neighborhoods for their “lack of inclusion.”



In order to accomplish this plan of “racial and economic justice” Barack Obama has been collecting a myriad of personal information on American citizens for his secret race database.

The New York Post reported on this Orwellian-style program put into motion by Barack Obama.

Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites. This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds. TRENDING: BREAKING: Omaha Bar Owner Charged For Killing Rioter Who Attacked Him and His Business Has Committed Suicide Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online. So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.

Read more on this disturbing and secretive Obama program here.

Of course, housing and economic redistribution has always been central to Marxist movements.

And Barack Obama’s latest redistribution plan could have come directly from any Marxist handbook.

Here is just one report on housing redistribution in Soviet Russia:

In the Soviet Union, housing in cities belonged to the government. It was distributed by municipal authorities or by government departments based on an established number of square meters per person. As a rule, tenants had no choice in the housing they were offered. Rent and payment for communal services like water and electricity did not form a significant part of a family’s budget. They did not cover the real costs, and were subsidized by the government. People’s access to housing was like their access to consumer goods in that it depended on their position in society and their place of work. Often, housing (the so-called “department housing”) was provided by the workplace. Administrative control over housing and the movement of citizens was carried out by means of the residency permit. In cities right up to the 1970s, most families lived in a single room in a communal apartment, where they suffered from overcrowding and had little hope of improving their situation. A comparative minority of people lived in “private” apartments or still lived in dormitories and barracks. Although as far back as the 1930s, a private apartment for each family was declared a goal of Soviet housing policy, large-scale construction was begun only at the end of the 1950s. Extensive construction of low-quality five-story concrete-block buildings, dubbed “Khrushchevki,” (or “Khrushcheby,” which rhymes with the Russian word “trushchoby, ” meaning slums), mitigated the situation to some degree. (We’ve translated this word as “Khrushchev housing” when it comes up in clips.) Nevertheless, the declared goal was not met, even in the 1980s when high-rise projects with private apartments became the main form of city housing. At that time, some cities, including Leningrad, had almost a third of its citizens “on the housing list.” Beginning in the 1960s, people who could not count on joining the housing list because their present space exceeded the legal norm (i.e., they had more than five square meters per person) could contribute their personal funds to a cooperative construction project and receive what was called a “cooperative apartment.” Only the better-off portion of the population could afford this, and here also the amount of living space a family already had could not exceed specific limits. The limit of nine square meters per person held up to the early 1980s, after which it began to increase. In calculating square meters, the government took into account not only a family’s primary living space, but also, if they had one, the dacha. For those who could join a cooperative, housing was comparatively affordable: the price of a square meter in a cooperative apartment was about equivalent to an average monthly salary. In contemporary St. Petersburg (2006), by contrast, the market value of a square meter in the cheapest new apartment is about ten times the average monthly salary. Yet another way to improve one’s living conditions, though not by a lot, was the “exchange”: you could exchange your housing with other people. If, for example, a family with one large room in a communal apartment split in two (for example, after a divorce), those people could exchange their living space for two small rooms in different communal apartments. People who got one big room were said to be “moving in together” (Russian s”ezzhayutsya) and those who exchanged for two small rooms were said to be “moving away from each other” or “splitting” (Russian raz”ezzhayutsya).

By the time he leaves office Barack Obama is hoping to have put in place redistributive programs based on his training as a radical Marxist organizer.

We’ve seen how well his programs have worked so far – wages are lower, food stamp usage is soaring and violence is up across the United States.

Hopefully the country will survive this twisted Socailist’s reign of terror.

May God help us in the days ahead.