PDA

View Full Version : Clinton: We take things your things for the common good..



stephanie
04-04-2007, 02:58 AM
:clap:


Clinton: We take your things for the common good

By: Steve Adcock | Submitted on: 04/03/07


EDITORIAL - Speaking in 2004 to a crowd of wealthy democratic supporters during a fund raising event in San Francisco, Hillary Clinton spoke the very words that illustrate the intentions of the government so very well. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
While those words were spoken three years ago, they are just as important today. They represent not just the Democrat party's strong commitment to the redistribution of wealth rightfully earned by the American people, it provides insight into the focus that our politicians have in running our nation. It highlights the precise arrogance that Hillary, and many other politicians, have. Our property is not the federal government's to take. The people are not here for the federal government to milk.

Governments are meant to provide protection for their people. Whether that means standing guard at the border, interpreting intelligence data from around the world, monitoring the actions of hostile nations or providing domestic police forces to ensure obedience from the people, governments provide the necessary protection that most Americans simply cannot provide for themselves.

These ideals are especially true at the federal level with any nation. Federal governments need not involve themselves in the day to day activities of its people, as it will quickly get absorbed by a monstrous legion of citizen activists, rules, regulations and bureaucracy, each of which requires money and resources to manage.

Local governments, on the other hand, are best suited to deal with the suffering of its citizens and to provide the necessary services within the guidelines of the state and federal Constitutions. Local governments and communities, after all, know first hand what the needs of their localities are and how best to address those needs quickly and efficiently.

In the United States, federal politicians see the local governments as a threat to the federal government's ultimate power and influence. Our federal government is large. It has established federal departments for virtually every facet of our lives, social entitlement programs under the guise of compassion and an outrageously complex tax structure that requires some Americans to purchase software or the expertise of skilled accountants to wade through their earnings to determine just how much money they still owe the federal government.

Truer words have never before been spoken by a politician in America than the words uttered by presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. “Taking things away”, after all, is what the government does best. Redistributing wealth to those people that the government believes are more deserving is the very trait of a Marxist society.
Clinton might as well have said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

While the federal government deserves to be financially supported for the rightful services it provides, such as the protection of the American people from foreign and domestic threats, they are under no constitutional authority to establish a class-based society where the tax dollars from one class flow straight downhill to the people of another class. Simply, that is not their job. It is immoral and unethical, and the implications of that kind of control are downright frightening.

The government has no right to take “things” away from the American people on behalf of the “common good”. And who defines what common good is? Politicians? Is robbing a bank on behalf of a homeless person for the common good? Could I use that defense in a court of law? Of course not. I would be thrown in jail for robbing a bank, even if I were to give 100% of the stolen funds to a homeless person. The federal government, on a daily basis, gets away with the things that you or I would be jailed for committing.

Unless you want your things taken away from you, we as Americans need to fight back for our freedoms in this so-called free society in which we live. Listen to what politicians are telling you. Consider their words and match those words against the constitutional and ethical obligations of the federal government. If those words do not correspond to the kind of society that you wish to live in, as I certainly hope they do not, then demand change. Fight with your vote the next time that you are at the polls. Refuse to vote for the politicians that crave a weak society of dependence, a welfare state and a complete lack of accountability among our representatives.

Fighting back in America is not difficult to do, but understanding that the federal government was never designed to be our nanny seems to be a concept difficult to instill. Our children are indoctrinated into the big government mentality from an early age in government-funded schools. They are taught to never question the government, to assume the government has our best interests at heart and to believe that our guiding principles (the Constitution) is nothing more than a “living concept”, meant to be interpreted and rationalized as to provide for the very programs and federal social entitlements that are in place today.

No, Mr. federal government, you do not have the right to take things away from the people. You have the right to do your job, such as establishing a nation where an attack like Sept 11th never has a chance of succeeding.


Steve Adcock is the founder and developer of SmallGovTimes.com.
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07apr03.clinton.common.good/index.html

SassyLady
04-04-2007, 03:50 AM
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread

Typical of our liberal thinkers of today.

stephanie
04-04-2007, 05:19 AM
Typical of our liberal thinkers of today.

I remember that tale Mrs, Kurt..:laugh2:

avatar4321
04-04-2007, 06:16 AM
Thus the absurdity of liberalism.

Nienna
04-04-2007, 07:21 AM
What I just can't understand is WHY, why, when we look at history, when we look at the other governments around the world, WHY would anyone want to make our government and economy look like those others? It must be the grossest kind of arrogance, BLINDING arrogance, to believe that somehow, OUR country will do better under that system than all the other countries that have adopted it in the past. It's incomprehensible to me.

avatar4321
04-04-2007, 07:52 AM
What I just can't understand is WHY, why, when we look at history, when we look at the other governments around the world, WHY would anyone want to make our government and economy look like those others? It must be the grossest kind of arrogance, BLINDING arrogance, to believe that somehow, OUR country will do better under that system than all the other countries that have adopted it in the past. It's incomprehensible to me.

It's nothing but arrogance. They look at the other governments and think "Oh that wont happen to us. I'm much smarter." It's the same attitude they have for why they should take the money rather than leave it in the hands of those who earn it. "I can use your money for your good better than you can"

Like I said, its nothing but evidence.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 10:31 AM
What I just can't understand is WHY, why, when we look at history, when we look at the other governments around the world, WHY would anyone want to make our government and economy look like those others? It must be the grossest kind of arrogance, BLINDING arrogance, to believe that somehow, OUR country will do better under that system than all the other countries that have adopted it in the past. It's incomprehensible to me.

They want to redistrubute the money but they will get their share as well. AND they will be at the top. They collect the money and let it trickle down as THEY want.

You can bet that the rich libs will remain rich libs and will run everything. They have no concerns about how the system works as long as they have the power.To believe that any of those people have a concern for this country or the people is foolish.

MtnBiker
04-04-2007, 01:18 PM
Hillary Clinton spoke the very words that illustrate the intentions of the government so very well. "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."


Do property rights mean anything to Mrs Bill Clinton?

stephanie
04-04-2007, 01:19 PM
What I just can't understand is WHY, why, when we look at history, when we look at the other governments around the world, WHY would anyone want to make our government and economy look like those others? It must be the grossest kind of arrogance, BLINDING arrogance, to believe that somehow, OUR country will do better under that system than all the other countries that have adopted it in the past. It's incomprehensible to me.

Three reasons..The first two are the biggies..

1. POWER

2. CONTROL

3. MONEY

MtnBiker
04-04-2007, 01:35 PM
This comment fit in nicely with Mrs Bill Clinton's desire take property of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g[/QUOTE]

MtnBiker
04-04-2007, 01:35 PM
This comment fit in nicely with Mrs Bill Clinton's desire take property of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Abbey Marie
04-04-2007, 02:34 PM
Anyone who studies sHrillary's past, knows that this is a common theme for her. Particularly if you know about her school days. I have absolutely no doubt that if she is elected Prez, she will push any Socialist policies she thinks she can get away with. And God help us with her having the power to nominate and appoint federal judges.

stephanie
04-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Anyone who studies shirley's past, knows that this is a common theme for her. Particularly if you know about her school days. I have absolutely no doubt that if she is elected Prez, she will push any Socialist policies she thinks she can get away with. And God help us with her having the power to nominate and appoint federal judges.

So will Edwards and Obama...
The Democrats have come to the conclusion, that socialism is the only way for them to STAY in power...

They win.....We Lose

Abbey Marie
04-04-2007, 02:54 PM
So will Edwards and Obama...
The Democrats have come to the conclusion, that socialism is the only way for them to STAY in power...

They win.....We Lose

Yes, and eventually, the world loses, when we are no longer able to given them aid because we ourselves are in the poor house from a failed economic system.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 02:54 PM
So will Edwards and Obama...
The Democrats have come to the conclusion, that socialism is the only way for them to STAY in power...

They win.....We Lose

That's for sure. even the regular dems have switched over to socialism. They need to rename themselves the communist party.

Abbey Marie
04-04-2007, 02:56 PM
That's for sure. even the regular dems have switched over to socialism. They need to rename themselves the communist party.

Little red books for everyone!

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Little red books for everyone!

The re-education centers will be open shortly after they get power. Wrong thinking will not be tolerated.

Abbey Marie
04-04-2007, 04:19 PM
The re-education centers will be open shortly after they get power. Wrong thinking will not be tolerated.

And I think I can squeeze a couple more families in my suburban capitalist pig home. Very Dr. Zhivago, don't you think?

Nukeman
04-05-2007, 12:39 PM
The re-education centers will be open shortly after they get power. Wrong thinking will not be tolerated.
I do believe they have already started down this path with the "sensetivity training, and racial tolerance education". We have been going down the road of reeducation and indocrtination for quite a few years now.

Hillary is the epitomy of liberal communism and she should join her friend Fidel for tea..

Abbey Marie
04-05-2007, 12:41 PM
I do believe they have already started down this path with the "sensetivity training, and racial tolerance education". We have been going down the road of reeducation and indocrtination for quite a few years now.

Hillary is the epitomy of liberal communism and she should join her friend Fidel for tea..

Excellent points- repped ya.

Dilloduck
04-05-2007, 01:22 PM
That's for sure. even the regular dems have switched over to socialism. They need to rename themselves the communist party.

They're afraid that someone will recognize that word and may even know what it means so they stick with "Progressive".

Gaffer
04-05-2007, 02:30 PM
I do believe they have already started down this path with the "sensetivity training, and racial tolerance education". We have been going down the road of reeducation and indocrtination for quite a few years now.

Hillary is the epitomy of liberal communism and she should join her friend Fidel for tea..

Your so right on the sensitivity training points. It is re-education. And they do rename everything to make it sounds like something it isn't.

Abbey Marie
04-05-2007, 02:31 PM
Your so right on the sensitivity training points. It is re-education. And they do rename everything to make it sounds like something it isn't.

You mean like not calling it the GWOT anymore? :rolleyes: ;)

Gaffer
04-05-2007, 02:36 PM
You mean like not calling it the GWOT anymore? :rolleyes: ;)

yeah good example, they just haven't come up with a good replacement name, they want to call each front a seperate war.

Nienna
04-05-2007, 02:38 PM
yeah good example, they just haven't come up with a good replacement name, they want to call each front a seperate war.

I think they actually want us to believe each front IS a separate war.

Dilloduck
04-05-2007, 02:43 PM
I think they actually want us to believe each front IS a separate war.

I think that they just wanna portray anyone who stands in the way of thier "vision" for America as evil-----just like all red blooded American politicians

Abbey Marie
04-05-2007, 02:45 PM
I think that they just wanna portray anyone who stands in the way of thier "vision" for America as evil-----just like all red blooded American politicians

Do they even make glasses strong enough for such bad vision? I don't think even coke bottles can correct it.

Dilloduck
04-05-2007, 02:49 PM
Do they even make glasses strong enough for such bad vision? I don't think even coke bottles can correct it.

If they clearly defined it and the consequences of it no one would vote for them. They have to stick to mudslinging. It's all they have.

Gaffer
04-05-2007, 02:52 PM
I think they actually want us to believe each front IS a separate war.

Yes that's true, it makes it easier to nitpick.