The Hilldebeast..............

John A. Quayle blueoval57 at VERIZON.NET
Tue Oct 2 00:36:17 MDT 2007

Henry Lamb

WND Exclusive Commentary

Hillary and Karl Marx

Posted: June 9, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

In a 
speech, Hillary Clinton described the Bush 
administration as a "government of the few, by 
the few and for the few." She's wrong; the Bush 
government is bigger than the Clinton government. 
Nevertheless, the government she described might 
be the government Thomas Paine had in mind when 
he observed: "That government is best which governs least."

Hillary doesn't agree with Paine's observation. 
She says she prefers a "we're all in it together" 
society where "government can once again work for 
all Americans," with "opportunity for all and special privilege for none."

This could be scary. If, in the world Hillary 
prefers, one person achieves greater success than 
another from an equal opportunity, does the 
result constitute a special privilege that should 
be denied to the more successful?

Hillary believes in "pairing growth with 
fairness." This must be one way "government works 
for all the people" – by keeping track of the 
success achieved by all the workers to make sure 
someone doesn't get a "special privilege" as the 
result of greater success than another. No wonder 
she doesn't like a government that governs least; 
it takes a lot of government workers to work for all the people.

Hillary's rhetoric and voting record reveal a 
philosophy that penalizes success by taxing the 
rich and rewards failure by expanding the work 
government does for other Americans. Hillary's 
description of the government she prefers is one 
that takes "from each according to his ability," 
and redistributes "to each according to his 
need." In fact, she told a San Francisco 
going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Thomas Paine's observation, which succinctly 
describes the government designed by the U.S. 
Constitution, could not be further from the Karl 
Marx vision of Hillary's preferred government. 
The great disappointment in America is that. 
increasingly, more people seem to prefer 
government to do more "work for the people," and 
thereby move further toward the Karl Marx vision 
than the Thomas Paine vision of government.

There is a direct correlation between the freedom 
people have and the "work" government does for 
the people; the more there is of the latter, the 
less there is of freedom. For government to 
prevent "special privileges" to some, it must 
know about all, and it must place active 
constraints upon some to advance others.

Economic growth, according to Hillary's 
philosophy, must be governed by rules that 
"protect our workers and give all people a chance 
to succeed. Fairness doesn't just happen. It 
requires the right government policies."

Hillary's vision is not of a free market, nor of 
a free people; it is a vision of government 
control, enforced "fairness" and limited opportunity.

Hillary's philosophy is not exclusively hers, nor 
does it belong exclusively to any political 
party. It is a philosophy that prevails 
throughout Europe and has grown steadily in the 
United States for most of the last century. It is 
a philosophy that empowers government to impose 
its will upon the people in the belief that the 
opinions and theories of professionals are 
certainly better than the self-seeking whims of ordinary individuals.

The definition of freedom is: the self-seeking 
whims (and responsibility) of ordinary 
individuals. Or, put another way: "... the pursuit of happiness."

Under the leadership of Democrats and Republicans 
who share Hillary's philosophy, government is 
constructing an all-encompassing web of rules and 
regulations. This web is formulated not by 
elected representatives of the people, but by 
appointed professionals who work throughout 
government agencies. Self-appointed, so-called 
professionals who represent special interest 
groups, often funded by government grants, lend 
their expertise to the hard sell of the 
philosophy that government-enforced fairness 
makes a better society than does individual freedom.

Hillary's philosophy continues to permeate public 
policy in education, economic development, health 
care, land use, environmental protection, 
international affairs and every other corner of 
society. The solution to this problem, and the 
salvation of America, lies not in the elimination 
of rules of behavior, but in the method by which 
those rules are developed, adopted and enforced.

The genius of the American system of government 
is the idea that government power is limited by 
the consent of the governed. This consent is 
conveyed when representatives are empowered at 
the ballot box to enact rules of behavior. When 
the rules these representatives adopt do not 
receive the consent of the people, then the 
representatives can be sent packing and new representatives elected.

When the rules of behavior are developed, enacted 
and enforced by people who are not elected, the 
people have no way to convey or deny their 
consent. Government usurps the power from the 
people and imposes its will – as it wills.

This is the kind of government Hillary and a 
great many others want. This is the kind of 
government they describe as the government they 
will continue to build. It is the kind of 
government in which freedom will continue to 
diminish, and eventually fade into oblivion.

Related special offer:

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution"

<mailto:henry at>Henry Lamb is the 
executive vice president of the 
Conservation Organization and chairman of 
<>Sovereignty International.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.36/1041 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 10:20 AM

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list